Cited by 244Visual perception and processing mechanismsRetinal Development and DisordersNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Visual Space Is Represented by Nonmatching Topographies of Distinct Mouse Retinal Ganglion Cell Types

Open access
Bleckert, Adam, Schwartz, Gregory W., Turner, Maxwell H., Rieke, Fred, Wong, Rachel O.L.·2014·Current Biology

Abstract

The distributions of neurons in sensory circuits display ordered spatial patterns arranged to enhance or encode specific regions or features of the external environment. Indeed, visual space is not sampled uniformly across the vertebrate retina. Retinal ganglion cell (RGC) density increases and dendritic arbor size decreases toward retinal locations with higher sampling frequency, such as the fovea in primates and area centralis in carnivores [1]. In these locations, higher acuity at the level of individual cells is obtained because the receptive field center of a RGC corresponds approximately to the spatial extent of its dendritic arbor [2, 3]. For most species, structurally and functionally distinct RGC types appear to have similar topographies, collectively scaling their cell densities and arbor sizes toward the same retinal location [4]. Thus, visual space is represented across the retina in parallel by multiple distinct circuits [5]. In contrast, we find a population of mouse RGCs, known as alpha or alpha-like [6], that displays a nasal-to-temporal gradient in cell density, size, and receptive fields, which facilitates enhanced visual sampling in frontal visual fields. The distribution of alpha-like RGCs contrasts with other known mouse RGC types and suggests that, unlike most mammals, RGC topographies in mice are arranged to sample space differentially.

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.2013.12.020

Cites

50 of 50 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?

  • SMI-32 recognizes non-phosphorylated neurofilament heavy chain and identifies alpha RGC.

    “The antibody SMI-32, which recognizes non-phosphorylated neurofilament heavy chain, was used to identify alpha RGC characterized by strongly labeled somata and large dendritic arbors [36].”

    From AMPK hyperactivation promotes dendrite retraction, synaptic loss, and neuronal dysfunction in glaucoma (2021) · cites this paper as [36]

    The Results and Discussion section on mouse ON alpha-like RGCs states that SMI-32 is directed against non-phosphorylated neurofilament heavy chain and labels two alpha-like RGC populations. It does not establish strongly labeled somata as an identifying feature, and it explicitly says SMI-32 does not label the third alpha-like population, AOFF-S. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

2 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [50]Hughes S Watson TS Foster RG Peirson SN Hankins MW Nonuniform distribution and spectral tuning of photosensitive retinal ganglion cells of the mouse retina Curr Biol 2013 23 1696 1701 23954426 PMC3770899

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bleckert, A., Schwartz, G. W., Turner, M. H., Rieke, F., & Wong, R. O. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Wong, Rachel O.L.
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-02
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
310-315
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2031675933
Cited by
244
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 14
FWCI
11.72
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 (5t32gm007108-40)
  • National Eye Institute (R01EY010699, EY-07031, F32EY007031, R01EY011850, T32EY007031)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (5 T32-GM07108, T32GM-007108)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (T32HD007183)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Retinal Development and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
retinal ganglion cells, retinal topography, visual representation of space, cell density, receptive fields, mouse retina, visual sampling
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Count, Immunohistochemistry, Mice, Transgenic, Retinal Ganglion Cells, Visual Perception, 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.

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