Cited by 242Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchNeural dynamics and brain functionMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Connectomic comparison of mouse and human cortex

Loomba, Sahil, Straehle, Jakob, Gangadharan, Vijayan, Heike, Natalie, Khalifa, Abdelrahman, Motta, Alessandro, Ju, Niansheng, Sievers, Meike +3 more·2022·Science

Abstract

The human cerebral cortex houses 1000 times more neurons than that of the cerebral cortex of a mouse, but the possible differences in synaptic circuits between these species are still poorly understood. We used three-dimensional electron microscopy of mouse, macaque, and human cortical samples to study their cell type composition and synaptic circuit architecture. The 2.5-fold increase in interneurons in humans compared with mice was compensated by a change in axonal connection probabilities and therefore did not yield a commensurate increase in inhibitory-versus-excitatory synaptic input balance on human pyramidal cells. Rather, increased inhibition created an expanded interneuron-to-interneuron network, driven by an expansion of interneuron-targeting interneuron types and an increase in their synaptic selectivity for interneuron innervation. These constitute key neuronal network alterations in the human cortex.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.abo0924

Cites

24 of 24 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?

  • The preference of glutamatergic axons for spines and GABAergic axons for shafts is often misinterpreted as implying that synapses on dendritic shafts are mostly SS.

    “However, this characteristic is often misinterpreted as implying that synapses on dendritic shafts are mostly SS (Motta et al., 2019; Karimi et al., 2020; Loomba et al., 2022).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Loomba, S., Straehle, J., Gangadharan, V., Heike, N., Khalifa, A., Motta, A., Ju, N., Sievers, M., Gempt, J., Meyer, H. S., & Helmstaedter, M.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Max Planck Institute for Brain Research (DE)
  • Department of Connectomics, Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, Frankfurt, Germany.
  • TUM Klinikum (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Loomba, Sahil
  • Straehle, Jakob
  • Gangadharan, Vijayan
  • Heike, Natalie
  • Motta, Alessandro
  • Helmstaedter, Moritz
Venue
Science
Published
2022-07-08
Volume
377
Issue
6602
Pages
eabo0924-eabo0924
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W4283328497
Cited by
242
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 75 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 8
FWCI
22.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • mediaTUM (Technical University of Munich) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
cerebral cortex, interneurons, synaptic circuits, excitation-inhibition balance, pyramidal neurons, macaque cortex, 3D electron microscopy
MeSH terms
Animals, Cerebral Cortex, Humans, Interneurons, Macaca, Pyramidal Cells, Mice, Connectome

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