Cited by 432Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 16 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Large-Scale Cellular-Resolution Gene Profiling in Human Neocortex Reveals Species-Specific Molecular Signatures

Open access

Abstract

Summary Although there have been major advances in elucidating the functional biology of the human brain, relatively little is known of its cellular and molecular organization. Here we report a large-scale characterization of the expression of ~1,000 genes important for neural functions, by in situ hybridization with cellular resolution in visual and temporal cortices of adult human brains. These data reveal diverse gene expression patterns and remarkable conservation of each individual gene’s expression among individuals (95%), cortical areas (84%), and between human and mouse (79%). A small but substantial number of genes (21%) exhibited species-differential expression. Distinct molecular signatures, comprised of genes both common between species and unique to each, were identified for each major cortical cell type. The data suggest that gene expression profile changes may contribute to differential cortical function across species, in particular, a shift from corticosubcortical to more predominant corticocortical communications in the human brain.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Large-scale in situ hybridization profiled ~1,000 genes at cellular resolution in adult human visual and mid temporal cortex, revealing high conservation across individuals, cortical areas, and human-mouse but also species-differential expression. The data identify distinct molecular signatures for major cortical cell types and suggest gene expression changes may contribute to differential cortical function, including a shift toward corticocortical communication in human.

Key findings

  • Of 995 genes assayed, 79% were expressed above background; expression was consistent for 95% of genes among individuals, 84% across cortical areas 17, 18, and 21, and 79% between human and mouse.
  • A small but substantial fraction varied: 5% of genes showed donor variation, 16% differed across the three cortical areas, and 21% (199 genes) showed moderate or marked human-mouse difference in visual cortex.
  • Approximately 50% of 237 mouse cortical marker genes expressed differently in human; 59% of laminar markers and 41% of putative interneuron markers differed, while glial and vascular markers were relatively conserved. A total of 165 genes were designated human cortical markers, and 38% of these had human-mouse expression differences.
  • Layer-specific shifts were prominent: 36 genes (51% of mouse layer 5 markers) had diminished or no specific human layer 5 expression, while another set was enhanced in human layer 3 large pyramidal neurons, with some genes shifting from mouse layer 5 to human layer 3. Among human lineage-specific genes present in both species, 16 showed increased and 4 decreased expression in human.

Methods

  • Postmortem adult human brain tissue without known neuropathology or neuropsychiatric illness was used; visual cortex (areas 17 and 18) and mid temporal cortex (mostly area 21) were profiled. Each gene was assayed in 2–6 brains, most in 4, across 46 donor cases (27 men, 19 women), with about 92 genes per case and ~31,000 ISH images generated.
  • Digoxigenin-labeled riboprobes were used for cellular-resolution in situ hybridization on a standardized platform adapted from the Allen Mouse Brain Atlas; probes were 400–1000 bp and designed for >50% overlap with mouse ortholog probes. Expression level and spatial pattern were manually scored, with tissue quality benchmarked using control genes and an Imod exclusion threshold of ±2 SD.
  • Comparisons included across genes, cortical regions, individuals, and human versus mouse visual cortex (941 orthologs) and temporal cortex (611 genes with mouse coronal data). Laser capture microdissection and RT-qPCR validated donor variation for RELN.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the study provides qualitative, not quantitative, assessment because of the small number of specimens per gene and difficulty quantifying a large, anatomically irregular dataset; small quantitative changes could have been missed. It also notes that only two cortical regions were analyzed, so whole-brain extrapolation may underestimate localized expression differences.
  • The paper states that tissue quality variation and limited sample sizes constrained analysis, and that only particularly striking expression level differences were called out in the human-mouse comparison.
  • Evident from the text: manual scoring is subjective; “putative” cell-type identities cannot be ascertained purely from scattered ISH patterns; cross-species comparisons are limited to orthologs with data in both species and, for temporal cortex, to genes with mouse coronal data.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cell.2012.02.052

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 16 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 32
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 15
44 of 44
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Existing gene expression profiling studies have typically been performed on homogenized tissues and cannot discern cellular heterogeneity or spatial localization within the brain.

    “To date, such gene expression profiling studies have typically been performed on homogenized tissues, unable to discern cellular heterogeneity as well as spatial localization within the brain.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Human visual cortex areas 17/18 and mouse visual cortex are homologous enough to compare gene expression.

    “A substantially higher degree of gene expression variation was observed when comparing putatively homologous human and mouse cortical areas.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Mouse TEa is the closest homolog of human area 21.

    “we compared human area 21 with the caudal part of mouse temporal association cortex (TEa), likely to be the closest homolog of area 21.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Postmortem human brain tissue gene expression reflects in vivo gene expression.

    “Expression analysis of 995 genes was done by ISH in multiple postmortem adult brain specimens from two functionally distinct cortical regions: visual cortex (containing Brodmann’s areas 17 and 18), and mid temporal cortex (containing mostly Brodmann’s area 21, with parts of area 22 and sometimes 20), from individuals without any known neuropathology or history of neuropsychiatric illnesses.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Donors without known neuropathology or history of neuropsychiatric illnesses represent normal human cortex.

    “from individuals without any known neuropathology or history of neuropsychiatric illnesses.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The two cortical regions analyzed are representative of the human neocortex.

    “in two cortical regions of human brains”
    “the basic cellular composition and gene expression profiles of the human brain are fundamentally similar”
6 of 6

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 50 references

2 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 432

Metadata

Authors
Zeng, H., Shen, E. H., Hohmann, J. G., Oh, S. W., Bernard, A., Royall, J. J., Glattfelder, K. J., Sunkin, S. M., Morris, J. A., Guillozet-Bongaarts, A. L., Smith, K. A., Ebbert, A. J., Swanson, B., Kuan, L., Page, D. T., Overly, C. C., Lein, E. S., Hawrylycz, M. J., Hof, P. R., Hyde, T. M., Kleinman, J. E., & Jones, A. R.
Affiliations
  • Allen Institute for Brain Science (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
  • Zeng, Hongkui
  • Jones, Allan R.
Venue
Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-04
Volume
149
Issue
2
Pages
483-496
ISSN
0092-8674 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2031215175
Cited by
426
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 11
FWCI
9.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 MH999999)
  • National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Keywords
human neocortex, gene expression profiling, visual cortex, temporal cortex, cortical cell types, species-specific gene expression, in situ hybridization, corticocortical connectivity
MeSH terms
Adult, Animals, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Neurons, Species Specificity, Temporal Lobe, Visual Cortex, Neocortex, Gene Expression Profiling, Mice

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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