Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 426

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Burst generating and regular spiking layer 5 pyramidal neurons of rat neocortex have different morphological features

Chagnac‐Amitai, Yael, Luhmann, Heiko J., Prince, David A.·1990·Journal of Comparative Neurology

Abstract

Intracellular recordings were obtained from pyramidal neurons in layer 5 of rat somatosensory and visual cortical slices maintained in vitro. When directly depolarized, one subclass of pyramidal neurons had the capacity to generate intrinsic burst discharges and another generated regular trains of single spikes. Burst responses were triggered in an all‐or‐none manner from depolarizing afterpotentials in most bursting neurons. Regular spiking cells responded to electrical stimulation of ascending afferents with a typical EPSP‐IPSP sequence, whereas IPSPs were hard to detect in bursting cells. Orthodromic activation of the latter evoked a prominent voltage‐dependent depolarization that could trigger a burst response. Intracellularly labelled bursting and regular spiking cells were located in layer 5b, but had distinctly different morphologies. Bursting neurons had a large pyramidal soma, a gradually emerging apical dendrite, and an extensile apical and basal dendritic tree. Their axonal collateral arborization was predominantly limited to layers 5/6. In contrast, regular spiking cells had a more rounded soma with abruptly emerging apical dendrite, a smaller dendritic arborization, and 2 to 8 ascending axonal collaterals that arborized widely in the supragranular layers. Both bursting and regular spiking cells had main axons that entered the subcortical white matter. These data show that some subgroups of pyramidal neurons within the deeper parts of layer 5 of rat cortex are morphologically and physiologically distinct and have different intracortical connections. Bursting cells presumably function to amplify and synchronize cortical outputs, whereas regular spiking output neurons provide excitatory feedback to neurons at all cortical levels and receive a more effective orthodromic inhibitory input. These data support the hypothesis that differences in gross neuronal structure, perhaps even the subtle differences that distinguish subclasses of neurons in a given lamina, are predictive of underlying differences in the type and distribution of ion channels in the nerve cell membrane and connections of cells within the cortical circuit.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cne.902960407

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 426

Metadata

Authors
Chagnac‐Amitai, Y., Luhmann, H. J., & Prince, D. A.
Venue
Journal of Comparative Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1990-06-22
Volume
296
Issue
4
Pages
598-613
ISSN
  • 0021-9967 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9861
OpenAlex
W2152110988
Cited by
426
References
3
FWCI
4.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Burst generating and regular spiking layer 5 pyramidal neurons of rat neocortex have different morphological features. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cne.902960407
The paper
Chagnac‐Amitai, Y., Luhmann, H. J., & Prince, D. A. (1990). Burst generating and regular spiking layer 5 pyramidal neurons of rat neocortex have different morphological features. Journal of Comparative Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902960407

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.