Cited by 97Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation

Radial glia cells in the developing human brain

Open access
Howard, Brian M., Zhicheng Mo, Filipovic, Radmila, Moore, Anna R., Antic, Srdjan D., Zecevic, Nada·2008·The Neuroscientist

Abstract

Human radial glia (RG) share many of the features described in rodents, but also have a number of characteristics unique to the human brain. Results obtained from different mammalian species including human and non-human primates reveal differences in the involvement of RG in neurogenesis and oligodendrogenesis and in the timing of the initial expression of typical RG immunomarkers. A common problem in studying the human brain is that experimental procedures using modern molecular and genetic methods, such as in vivo transduction with retroviruses or creation of knockout or transgenic mutants, are not possible. Nevertheless, abundant and valuable information about the development of the human brain has been revealed using postmortem human material. Additionally, a combination and spectrum of in vitro techniques are used to gain knowledge about normal developmental processes in the human brain, including better understanding of RG as progenitor cells. Molecular and functional characterization of multipotent progenitors, such as RG, is important for future cell replacement therapies in neurological and psychiatric disorders, which are often resistant to conventional treatments. The protracted time of development and larger size of the human brain could provide insight into processes that may go unnoticed in the much smaller rodent cortex, which develops over a much shorter period. With that in mind, we summarize results on the role of RG in the human fetal brain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1073858407313512

Cites

131 of 131 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Howard, B. M., Mo, Z., Filipovic, R., Moore, A. R., Antic, S. D., & Zecevic, N.
Affiliations
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
  • UConn Health (US)
  • Department of Neuroscience, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut,
Venue
The Neuroscientist
Published
2007-11-16
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
459-473
ISSN
  • 1073-8584 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-4098
OpenAlex
W2169432354
Cited by
97
References
131
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Neuroscientist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS041489)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Fetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Keywords
radial glia, human brain development, neurogenesis, oligodendrogenesis, multipotent progenitors, human fetal brain, postmortem brain, cell replacement therapy
MeSH terms
PAX6 Transcription Factor, Animals, Brain, Eye Proteins, Fetus, Humans, Nerve Tissue Proteins, Neuroglia, Neurons, Repressor Proteins, Species Specificity, Biomarkers, Homeodomain Proteins, Body Patterning, Paired Box Transcription Factors, Neurogenesis

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