Cited by 766Gene expression and cancer classificationSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

Functional organization of the transcriptome in human brain

Open access
Oldham, Michael C, Konopka, Genevieve, Iwamoto, Kazuya, Langfelder, Peter, Kato, Tadafumi, Horvath, Steve, Geschwind, Daniel H·2008·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

The enormous complexity of the human brain ultimately derives from a finite set of molecular instructions encoded in the human genome. These instructions can be directly studied by exploring the organization of the brain's transcriptome through systematic analysis of gene coexpression relationships. We analyzed gene coexpression relationships in microarray data generated from specific human brain regions and identified modules of coexpressed genes that correspond to neurons, oligodendrocytes, astrocytes and microglia. These modules provide an initial description of the transcriptional programs that distinguish the major cell classes of the human brain and indicate that cell type-specific information can be obtained from whole brain tissue without isolating homogeneous populations of cells. Other modules corresponded to additional cell types, organelles, synaptic function, gender differences and the subventricular neurogenic niche. We found that subventricular zone astrocytes, which are thought to function as neural stem cells in adults, have a distinct gene expression pattern relative to protoplasmic astrocytes. Our findings provide a new foundation for neurogenetic inquiries by revealing a robust and previously unrecognized organization to the human brain transcriptome.

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 · 10.1038/nn.2207

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?

  • The hubs of M12 were A2BP1, APBA2, SCAMP5, CNTNAP1, KLC2, CHRM1.

    “The hubs of M12, i.e. the genes with the highest rank of M12 membership 8 , were A2BP1, APBA2, SCAMP5, CNTNAP1, KLC2, CHRM1 (Supplementary Data).”
  • The control brain network showed high similarity with previously described human brain co-expression networks.

    “The control brain network showed high similarity with the previously described human brain co-expression networks (Supplementary Table 7), consistent with the existence of robust modules of co-expressed genes related to specific cell types and biological functions 8 .”
  • M12 showed high overlap with a module of genes involved in synaptic function previously identified as part of the human brain transcriptional network.

    “and high overlap with two neuronal modules previously identified as part of the human brain transcriptional network 8 : a PVALB+ interneuron module and a module of genes involved in synaptic function.”
  • M16 showed significant similarity to a microglial module identified in previous studies of normal human brain.

    “showed significant similarity to two modules identified in previous studies of normal human brain 8 : an astrocyte module and a microglial module.”
  • M16 showed significant similarity to an astrocyte module identified in previous studies of normal human brain.

    “showed significant similarity to two modules identified in previous studies of normal human brain 8 : an astrocyte module and a microglial module.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oldham, M. C., Konopka, G., Iwamoto, K., Langfelder, P., Kato, T., Horvath, S., & Geschwind, D. H.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • RIKEN Center for Brain Science (JP)
Corresponding author
  • Oldham, Michael C
  • Geschwind, Daniel H
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2008-10-12
Volume
11
Issue
11
Pages
1271-1282
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2081837126
Cited by
752
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 53 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 54 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 53
FWCI
13.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R37MH060233)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Keywords
human brain transcriptome, gene co-expression, gene co-expression modules, cell type-specific gene expression, neurons, oligodendrocytes, astrocytes, microglia, neural stem cells, synaptic function, gender differences, neurogenesis, transcriptional programs
MeSH terms
Brain, Caudate Nucleus, Cerebellum, Cerebral Cortex, Humans, Neuroglia, Neurons, Gene Expression, Gene Expression Profiling, Databases, Genetic, Microarray Analysis, Gene Regulatory Networks

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