Cited by 163Neurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation

Clonal Development and Organization of the Adult Drosophila Central Brain

Open access
Yu, Hung-Hsiang, Awasaki, Takeshi, Schroeder, Mark David, Long, Fuhui, Yang, Jacob S., He, Yisheng, Ding, Peng, Kao, Jui-Chun +4 more·2013·Current Biology

Abstract

Background The insect brain can be divided into neuropils that are formed by neurites of both local and remote origin. The complexity of the interconnections obscures how these neuropils are established and interconnected through development. The Drosophila central brain develops from a fixed number of neuroblasts (NBs) that deposit neurons in regional clusters. Results By determining individual NB clones and pursuing their projections into specific neuropils, we unravel the regional development of the brain neural network. Exhaustive clonal analysis revealed 95 stereotyped neuronal lineages with characteristic cell-body locations and neurite trajectories. Most clones show complex projection patterns, but despite the complexity, neighboring clones often coinnervate the same local neuropil or neuropils and further target a restricted set of distant neuropils. Conclusions These observations argue for regional clonal development of both neuropils and neuropil connectivity throughout the Drosophila central brain.

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 · 10.1016/j.cub.2013.02.057

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Previous literature expected a total of around 119 lineages in the central brain, including the gnathal ganglia (GNG).

    “From previous literature, we expected a total of around 119 lineages in the central brain, including the gnathal ganglia (GNG)31–34,84.”

    From Whole-brain annotation and multi-connectome cell typing of Drosophila (2024) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Introduction reports an earlier count of 106 neuroblasts in the procephalic region, and the Discussion reports 114 lineages across two collections, including some possibly derived from the optic lobe. Neither passage gives an expected total of around 119 lineages including the gnathal ganglia; the paper treats the subesophageal ganglion as distinct from its cerebral focus. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The following lineages are new to the Ito/Lee nomenclature: CREl1/DALv3, LHp3/CP5, DILP/DILP, LALa1/BAlp2, SMPpm1/DPMm2 and VLPl5/BLVa3_or_4.

    “new to refs. 33,34 (ItoLee nomenclature) are: CREl1/DALv3, LHp3/CP5, DILP/DILP, LALa1/BAlp2, SMPpm1/DPMm2 and VLPl5/BLVa3_or_4”

    From Whole-brain annotation and multi-connectome cell typing of Drosophila (2024) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Results section on regional clustering (page unavailable) lists LH lineages only through LHp2 and identifies the two CRE lineages as CREa1 and CREa2, supporting that LHp3 and CREl1 are new relative to this paper's nomenclature. Searches for the other specified names and paired identifiers found no matching passage, but the available passages do not establish each proposed lineage correspondence or its novelty. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Light-level clones from refs. 33,34 match very well the great majority of the time.

    “although light-level clones from refs. 33,34 match very well the great majority of the time”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yu, H.-H., Awasaki, T., Schroeder, M. D., Long, F., Yang, J. S., He, Y., Ding, P., Kao, J.-C., Wu, G. Y.-Y., Peng, H., Myers, G., & Lee, T.
Affiliations
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Lee, Tzumin
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-04
Volume
23
Issue
8
Pages
633-643
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2123114798
Cited by
163
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 9
FWCI
7.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Keywords
neuronal lineage, neuronal migration, neural network organization, insect brain development
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Clone Cells, Drosophila melanogaster, Female, Larva, Male, Microscopy, Confocal, Cell Lineage, Neuropil, Neural Stem Cells

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