Cited by 328Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsMemory and Neural MechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Spatial Gene-Expression Gradients Underlie Prominent Heterogeneity of CA1 Pyramidal Neurons

Open access
Cembrowski, Mark S., Bachman, Julia L., Wang, Lihua, Sugino, Ken, Shields, Brenda C., Spruston, Nelson·2016·Neuron

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.12.013

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”

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
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