Cited by 258Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMemory and Neural MechanismsNeural dynamics and brain function

Heterogeneity within classical cell types is the rule: lessons from hippocampal pyramidal neurons

Cembrowski, Mark S., Spruston, Nelson·2019·Nature Reviews Neuroscience

Abstract

The mechanistic operation of brain regions is often interpreted by partitioning constituent neurons into 'cell types'. Historically, such cell types were broadly defined by their correspondence to gross features of the nervous system (such as cytoarchitecture). Modern-day neuroscientific techniques, enabling a more nuanced examination of neuronal properties, have illustrated a wealth of heterogeneity within these classical cell types. Here, we review the extent of this within-cell-type heterogeneity in one of the simplest cortical regions of the mammalian brain, the rodent hippocampus. We focus on the mounting evidence that the classical CA3, CA1 and subiculum pyramidal cell types all exhibit prominent and spatially patterned within-cell-type heterogeneity, and suggest these cell types provide a model system for exploring the organization and function of such heterogeneity. Given that the hippocampus is structurally simple and evolutionarily ancient, within-cell-type heterogeneity is likely to be a general and crucial feature of the mammalian brain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41583-019-0125-5

Cites

168 of 168 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • CA1 pyramidal neurons show a high level of heterogeneity at the molecular, cellular, connectivity, and in-vivo properties.

    “CA1 pyramidal neurons show a high level of heterogeneity at the molecular, cellular, connectivity, and in-vivo properties90–92.”
  • CA1, CA3 and SUB have gradual gene expression and connectivity changes along multiple dimensions - superficial-deep, proximal-distal and dorsal-ventral.

    “CA1, CA3 and SUB have gradual gene expression and connectivity changes along multiple dimensions – superficial-deep, proximal-distal and dorsal-ventral (Cembrowski and Spruston, 2019).”

    From A taxonomy of transcriptomic cell types across the isocortex and hippocampal formation (2021) · cites this paper as Cembrowski and Spruston, 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cembrowski, M. S., & Spruston, N.
Affiliations
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Venue
Nature Reviews Neuroscience
Published
2019-02-18
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
193-204
ISSN
  • 1471-003X (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0048
OpenAlex
W2914346278
Cited by
258
References
168
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 8
FWCI
3.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature reviews. Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
neuronal heterogeneity, hippocampal pyramidal neurons, cell types, CA3, CA1, subiculum, hippocampus, cortical organization, mammalian brain evolution
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Hippocampus, Pyramidal Cells

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