Cited by 322Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMemory and Neural MechanismsNeural dynamics and brain function

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 97 of the 97 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 160 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Experience-dependent structural plasticity in the cortex

Open access
Fu, Min, Zuo, Yi·2011·Trends in Neurosciences

Abstract

Synapses are the fundamental units of neuronal circuits. Synaptic plasticity can occur through changes in synaptic strength, as well as through the addition/removal of synapses. Two-photon microscopy in combination with fluorescence labeling offers a powerful tool to peek into the living brain and follow structural reorganization at individual synapses. Time-lapse imaging depicts a dynamic picture in which experience-dependent plasticity of synaptic structures varies between different cortical regions and layers, as well as between neuronal subtypes. Recent studies have demonstrated that the formation and elimination of synaptic structures happens rapidly in a subpopulation of cortical neurons during various sensorimotor learning experiences, and that stabilized synaptic structures are associated with long lasting memories for the task. Therefore, circuit plasticity, mediated by structural remodeling, provides an underlying mechanism for learning and memory.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review synthesizes in vivo two-photon imaging evidence that cortical synaptic structures are remodeled by experience, with rapid spine formation and elimination in subsets of neurons and stabilization linked to lasting memory. It argues that structural circuit rewiring complements synaptic strength changes in learning, while noting unresolved questions about deep layers, cell-type specificity, and causality.

Key findings

  • Dendritic spines are highly dynamic early and then stabilize: filopodia fall from over 50% at 2 weeks to under 10% at 1 month and 2–3% in adult barrel cortex; roughly 30% of spines are pruned between 1 and 4 months; more than 70% of adult spines remain stable over 18 months.
  • Experience changes spine dynamics: monocular deprivation increases spine formation and density selectively on L5 apical dendrites, and many new spines persist after binocular vision is restored; later deprivation enlarges these spines rather than adding more. Motor training induces new spines within one hour, learning acquisition correlates with spine formation, and skill maintenance correlates with survival of new spines, which can persist up to 4 months.
  • Plasticity differs by cell type and region: L5 pyramidal neurons with complex apical tufts preferentially gain new spines; inhibitory interneuron dendrites are dynamic in superficial L2/3, with visual deprivation increasing dynamic branches about 3-fold and producing roughly 10% interneuron synapse turnover per week. Axonal boutons also differ, with thalamocortical boutons about 85% stable over a month versus about 60% turnover in L6 cortical axons, and about 7% weekly bouton turnover in adult monkey visual cortex.
  • Structural changes likely correspond to functional synapses: EM and electrophysiology evidence indicates that persistent new spines and many boutons have synaptic contacts, although direct causal proof is still lacking.

Methods

  • Narrative review of in vivo structural imaging studies, primarily using two-photon laser scanning microscopy with fluorescent labeling such as thy1 transgenic mice and viral EGFP.
  • Covers excitatory pyramidal neurons, inhibitory interneurons, and axons across development and adulthood, including sensory manipulation, motor learning, songbird learning, stroke, neurodegeneration, and Fragile X Syndrome.
  • Synthesizes findings on spine, filopodium, and bouton turnover, morphology, stability, and links to functional synaptic connectivity; no primary data or meta-analysis are presented.

Limitations

  • Stated: current two-photon imaging is mostly limited to superficial cortical layers, mainly L1 and L2, leaving deeper-layer plasticity unclear; thy1 lines label sparse and often mixed cell populations, limiting cell-type-specific imaging; most learning studies show correlation rather than causation between structural dynamics and behavior.
  • Stated: the field debates whether dendritic protrusions should be classified as spines versus filopodia and what baseline spine dynamics actually are; discrepancies may come from mouse lines, animal age, cranial window versus thin skull preparation, analysis methods, and imaging intervals.
  • Evident: as a review, it lacks a systematic search or quantitative synthesis, and many conclusions rest on heterogeneous protocols and indirect structural proxies for synaptic connectivity.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tins.2011.02.001

Cites

97 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 160 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 69 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 46
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 7
52 of 52
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Synapses are located along the dendrites of aspiny interneurons.

    “Given the fact that synapses are located along dendrites of aspiny interneurons”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In vivo structural imaging is currently limited to superficial cortical layers (mostly L1 and L2) due to limitations of current two-photon laser scanning systems.

    “Due to the limitation of current two-photon laser scanning systems, in vivo structural imaging is currently limited to superficial cortical layers (mostly L1 and L2).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Different cortical layers have different connectivity.

    “Given the different connectivity between the different cortical layers, it may not be appropriate to simply extend the present understanding obtained from superficial layers to deeper layers of the cortex.”
3 of 3

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 97 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. James, 1890, Vol. 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 322

Metadata

Authors
Fu, M., & Zuo, Y.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
Corresponding author
Zuo, Yi
ORCID
Zuo, Yi
Venue
Trends in Neurosciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-04
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
177-187
ISSN
0166-2236 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2105232223
Cited by
322
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 23
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trends in Neurosciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Ellison Medical Foundation
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG031871)
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
experience-dependent plasticity, structural synaptic plasticity, cortical synapses, synaptic pruning, synaptogenesis, two-photon imaging, time-lapse imaging, sensorimotor learning, memory consolidation, cortical layers, neuronal cell types, circuit plasticity
MeSH terms
Animals, Cerebral Cortex, Dendrites, Learning, Memory, Neuronal Plasticity, Synapses, Time-Lapse Imaging

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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