Cited by 104Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Newborn granule cells in the ageing dentate gyrus

Open access
Morgenstern, Nicolás A., Lombardi, Gabriela, Schinder, Alejandro F.·2008·The Journal of Physiology

Abstract

The dentate gyrus of the hippocampus generates neurons throughout life, but adult neurogenesis exhibits a marked age‐dependent decline. Although the decrease in the rate of neurogenesis has been extensively documented in the ageing hippocampus, the specific characteristics of dentate granule cells born in such a continuously changing environment have received little attention. We have used retroviral labelling of neural progenitor cells of the adult mouse dentate gyrus to study morphological properties of neurons born at different ages. Dendritic spine density was measured to estimate glutamatergic afferent connectivity. Fully mature neurons born at the age of 2 months display ∼2.3 spines μm−1 and maintain their overall morphology and spine density in 1‐year‐old mice. Surprisingly, granule cells born in 10‐month‐old mice, at which time the rate of neurogenesis has decreased by ∼40‐fold, reach a density of dendritic spines similar to that of neurons born in young adulthood. Therefore, in spite of the sharp decline in cell proliferation, differentiation and overall neuronal number, the ageing hippocampus presents a suitable environment for new surviving neurons to reach a high level of complexity, comparable to that of all other dentate granule cells.

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 · 10.1113/jphysiol.2008.154807

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • It is well accepted that neurogenesis sharply decreases in the aged mammalian nervous system, with no new neurons detectable in mice by 10 months of age.

    “It is well accepted that neurogenesis sharply decreases in the aged mammalian nervous system29–31, with no new neurons detectable in mice by 10 months of age29,31.”

    From Therapeutically viable generation of neurons with antisense oligonucleotide suppression of PTB (2021) · cites this paper as [29]

    The ‘Sharp decrease in adult neurogenesis in the ageing brain’ section reports an approximately 40-fold reduction between 2- and 10-month-old mice, supporting the decline. But it also says GFP-positive newborn neurons were observed at all time points, and the ‘Complex morphological traits’ section describes neurons born in 10-month-old mice. The claim that none were detectable by that age is therefore contradicted. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The known low rate of ongoing neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus of young adult mice.

    “consistent with the known low rate of ongoing neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus of young adult mice29.”

    From Therapeutically viable generation of neurons with antisense oligonucleotide suppression of PTB (2021) · cites this paper as [29]

    The section “Sharp decrease in adult neurogenesis in the ageing brain” reports newly generated dentate granule cells in 2-month-old mice, supporting ongoing neurogenesis in young adults. It reports a roughly 40-fold decline by 10 months, but does not characterize the rate in young adult mice as low. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Morgenstern, N. A., Lombardi, G., & Schinder, A. F.
Affiliations
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
Venue
The Journal of Physiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-08-15
Volume
586
Issue
16
Pages
3751-3757
ISSN
  • 0022-3751 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7793
OpenAlex
W2169508723
Cited by
104
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Physiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CONICET Digital (CONICET) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • American Health Assistance Foundation
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
dentate gyrus, adult neurogenesis, dentate gyrus granule cells, dendritic spine density, neural progenitor cells, neuronal morphology
MeSH terms
Aging, Animals, Animals, Newborn, Cell Differentiation, Female, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Neurons, Stem Cells, Dentate Gyrus, Cell Proliferation, 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