Cited by 36Vestibular and auditory disordersMemory and Neural MechanismsMotor Control and Adaptation

A relationship between cerebellar Purkinje cells and spatial working memory demonstrated in a lurcher/chimera mouse model system

Open access
Martin, L. A., Escher, T., Goldowitz, D., Mittleman, G.·2004·Genes, Brain and Behavior

Abstract

New emphasis has been placed upon cerebellar research because of recent reports demonstrating involvement of the cerebellum in non‐motor cognitive behaviors. Included in the growing list of cognitive functions associated with cerebellar activation is working memory. In this study, we explore the potential role of the cerebellum in spatial working memory using a mouse model of Purkinje cell loss. Specifically, we make aggregation chimeras between heterozygous lurcher (Lc/+) mutant embryos and +/+ (wildtype) embryos and tested them in the delayed matching‐to‐position (DMTP) task.Lc/+ mice lose 100% of their Purkinje cells postnatally due to a cell‐intrinsic gain‐of‐function mutation.Lc/+<−>+/+ chimeras therefore have Purkinje cells ranging from 0 to normal numbers. Through histological examination of chimeric mice and observations of motor ability, we showed that ataxia is dependent upon both the number and distribution of Purkinje cells in the cerebellum. In addition, we found that Lc/+ mice, with a complete loss of Purkinje cells, have a generalized deficit in DMTP performance that is probably associated with their motor impairment. Finally, we found that Lc/+<−>+/+ chimeric mice, as a group, did not differ from control mice in this task. Rather, surprisingly, analysis of their total Purkinje cells and performance in the DMTP task revealed a significant negative relationship between these two variables. Together, these findings indicate that the cerebellum plays a minor or indirect role in spatial working memory.

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 · 10.1111/j.1601-183x.2004.00067.x

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • Individual chimeric mice showed no signs of motor impairment unless they lost more than 90% of Purkinje cells, in which case they were excluded from analyses.

    “Importantly, individual chimeric mice did not show signs of motor impairment unless they lost greater than 90% of their Purkinje cells in which case they were excluded from the analyses [285].”
  • Mice with reduced Purkinje cell numbers showed facilitated working memory performance on a delayed matching-to-position task.

    “but, surprisingly, facilitated working memory performance on a delayed matching-to-position task [285].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Sarno, M.T. (ed.), Acquired Aphasia. Academic Press, New York, pp. 231-243. The cerebellum and spatial working memory Genes, Brain and Behavior (2004) 3: 158-166
  2. Palumbo, C.L., Alexander, M.P.& Naeser, M.A. (1992) CT scan lesion sites associated with conduction aphasia. In Kohn, S.E. (ed.), Conduction Aphasia. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 51-75.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martin, L. A., Escher, T., Goldowitz, D., & Mittleman, G.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • University of Memphis (US)
  • University of Tennessee Health Science Center (US)
Corresponding author
Martin, L. A.
Venue
Genes, Brain and Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-02-16
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
158-166
ISSN
  • 1601-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1601-1848
OpenAlex
W2068165145
Cited by
36
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genes Brain & Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
cerebellum, Purkinje cells, spatial working memory, Purkinje cell degeneration, ataxia, motor impairment
MeSH terms
Animals, Ataxia, Cell Count, Cerebellum, Chimera, Choice Behavior, Memory, Short-Term, Mice, Neurologic Mutants, Mutation, Nervous System Malformations, Neuropsychological Tests, Purkinje Cells, Spatial Behavior, Cell Death, Mice

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