Bidirectional Activity-Dependent Morphological Plasticity in Hippocampal Neurons
Open accessAbstract
Dendritic spines on pyramidal neurons receive the vast majority of excitatory input and are considered electrobiochemical processing units, integrating and compartmentalizing synaptic input. Following synaptic plasticity, spines can undergo morphological plasticity, which possibly forms the structural basis for long-term changes in neuronal circuitry. Here, we demonstrate that spines on CA1 pyramidal neurons from organotypic slice cultures show bidirectional activity-dependent morphological plasticity. Using two-photon time-lapse microscopy, we observed that low-frequency stimulation induced NMDA receptor-dependent spine retractions, whereas theta burst stimulation led to the formation of new spines. Moreover, without stimulation the number of spine retractions was on the same order of magnitude as the stimulus-induced spine gain or loss. Finally, we found that the ability of neurons to eliminate spines in an activity-dependent manner decreased with developmental age. Taken together, our data show that hippocampal neurons can undergo bidirectional morphological plasticity; spines are formed and eliminated in an activity-dependent way.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
LTP-inducing stimuli cause the formation of new spines and the enlargement of existing ones.
“LTP-inducing stimuli cause the formation of new spines and the enlargement of existing ones (Matsuzaki et al., 2004; Nägerl et al., 2004)”
From The E3 ubiquitin ligase IDOL regulates synaptic ApoER2 levels and is important for plasticity and learning (2017) · cites this paper as Nägerl et al., 2004
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 23 · Cited by 602
- Authors
- Nägerl, U. V., Eberhorn, N., Cambridge, S. B., & Bonhoeffer, T.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Bonhoeffer, Tobias
- Venue
- Neuron
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 759-767
- ISSN
- 0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1986246328
- Cited by
- 602
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 46 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 33
- FWCI
- 9.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (vor, 3150 d)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
- Locations
- Neuron (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
- Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
- Keywords
- dendritic spines, morphological plasticity, NMDA receptor, theta burst stimulation, low-frequency stimulation, CA1 pyramidal neurons, hippocampus, developmental age, synaptic plasticity, organotypic slice cultures
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Electric Stimulation, Hippocampus, Mice, Transgenic, Neuronal Plasticity, Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate, Cellular Senescence, Pyramidal Cells, Dendritic Spines, Mice, In Vitro Techniques
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