Spatial Gene-Expression Gradients Underlie Prominent Heterogeneity of CA1 Pyramidal Neurons
Open accessAbstract
Tissue and organ function has been conventionally understood in terms of the interactions among discrete and homogeneous cell types. This approach has proven difficult in neuroscience due to the marked diversity across different neuron classes, but it may be further hampered by prominent within-class variability. Here, we considered a well-defined canonical neuronal population—hippocampal CA1 pyramidal cells (CA1 PCs)—and systematically examined the extent and spatial rules of transcriptional heterogeneity. Using next-generation RNA sequencing, we identified striking variability in CA1 PCs, such that the differences within CA1 along the dorsal-ventral axis rivaled differences across distinct pyramidal neuron classes. This variability emerged from a spectrum of continuous gene-expression gradients, producing a transcriptional profile consistent with a multifarious continuum of cells. This work reveals an unexpected amount of variability within a canonical and narrowly defined neuronal population and suggests that continuous, within-class heterogeneity may be an important feature of neural circuits.
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?
Although some within-type morpho-electric variability may be attributed to technical challenges of Patch-seq or to factors such as the exact spatial location of the cell within motor cortex, there are clear cases in the data that suggest within-type morpho-electric variability is related to within-type transcriptomic variability.
“Although we cannot fully exclude the possibility that some of this variability can be attributed to technical challenges of Patch-seq or to factors such as the exact spatial location of the cell within motor cortex36, there are clear cases in our data that suggest that within-type morpho-electric variability is related to within-type transcriptomic variability.”
From Phenotypic variation of transcriptomic cell types in mouse motor cortex (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 52 · Cited by 328
- Authors
- Cembrowski, M. S., Bachman, J. L., Wang, L., Sugino, K., Shields, B. C., & Spruston, N.
- Affiliations
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Spruston, Nelson
- Venue
- Neuron
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 351-368
- ISSN
- 0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2239186975
- Cited by
- 328
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 20
- FWCI
- 17.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Neuron (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
- Keywords
- CA1 pyramidal neurons, transcriptional heterogeneity, gene expression gradients, dorsal-ventral axis, hippocampus, neuronal heterogeneity, neural circuits
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Female, Gene Expression Regulation, Male, Mice, Transgenic, Organ Culture Techniques, Pyramidal Cells, Gene Expression Profiling, Mice, CA1 Region, Hippocampal
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