Cited by 277Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsCell Image Analysis Techniques

Conservation and divergence of cortical cell organization in human and mouse revealed by MERFISH

Open access
Fang, Rongxin, Xia, Chenglong, Close, Jennie L., Zhang, Meng, He, Jiang, Huang, Zhengkai, Halpern, Aaron R., Long, Brian +3 more·2022·Science

Abstract

The human cerebral cortex has tremendous cellular diversity. How different cell types are organized in the human cortex and how cellular organization varies across species remain unclear. In this study, we performed spatially resolved single-cell profiling of 4000 genes using multiplexed error-robust fluorescence in situ hybridization (MERFISH), identified more than 100 transcriptionally distinct cell populations, and generated a molecularly defined and spatially resolved cell atlas of the human middle and superior temporal gyrus. We further explored cell-cell interactions arising from soma contact or proximity in a cell type–specific manner. Comparison of the human and mouse cortices showed conservation in the laminar organization of cells and differences in somatic interactions across species. Our data revealed human-specific cell-cell proximity patterns and a markedly increased enrichment for interactions between neurons and non-neuronal cells in the human cortex.

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 · 10.1126/science.abm1741

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • After mapping each cell in the spatial transcriptomic dataset to subclasses and supertypes, there was concordance between expected and mapped spatial distributions; for example, excitatory IT subclasses were restricted to expected cortical layers and matched proportions observed in previous studies of neurotypical MTG tissue.

    “After mapping each cell in the spatial transcriptomic dataset to subclasses and supertypes, we found concordance between expected and mapped spatial distributions; for example, excitatory intratelencephalic (IT) subclasses were restricted to expected cortical layers and matched proportions observed in previous studies of neurotypical MTG tissue17,50 (Extended Data Fig. 7f,g).”

    From Integrated multimodal cell atlas of Alzheimer’s disease (2024) · cites this paper as [50]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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

2 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [5]Scuderi C, Verkhratsky A, in Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science (Elsevier, 2020), vol. 173, pp. 301– 330. 32711814
  2. [40]Verkhratsky A, Ho MS, Parpura V, in Neuroglia in Neurodegenerative Diseases, Verkhratsky A, Ho MS, Zorec R, Parpura V, Eds. (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2019), vol. 1175 of Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, pp. 15– 44.
  3. [41]Fang R, Conservation and divergence of cortical cell organization in human and mouse revealed by MERFISH, Dryad (2022); 10.5061/dryad.x3ffbg7mw PMC9262715 35771910 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fang, R., Xia, C., Close, J. L., Zhang, M., He, J., Huang, Z., Halpern, A. R., Long, B., Miller, J. A., Lein, E. S., & Zhuang, X.
Affiliations
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • Allen Institute for Brain Science (US)
Corresponding author
  • Fang, Rongxin
  • Xia, Chenglong
  • He, Jiang
  • Zhuang, Xiaowei
Venue
Science
Published
2022-07
Volume
377
Issue
6601
Pages
56-62
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W4283718372
Cited by
277
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
18.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Institute on Aging (P30AG066509)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH113094, U19MH114830)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
Keywords
human cerebral cortex, cell-cell interactions, human-mouse comparison, middle temporal gyrus, superior temporal gyrus, single-cell transcriptomics, laminar organization
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Communication, Cerebral Cortex, Humans, Neurons, In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence, Gene Expression Profiling, Mice, Single-Cell Analysis

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