Cited by 58Neurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Candidate Glutamatergic Neurons in the Visual System of Drosophila

Open access
Raghu, Shamprasad Varija, Borst, Alexander·2011·PLoS ONE

Abstract

The visual system of Drosophila contains approximately 60,000 neurons that are organized in parallel, retinotopically arranged columns. A large number of these neurons have been characterized in great anatomical detail. However, studies providing direct evidence for synaptic signaling and the neurotransmitter used by individual neurons are relatively sparse. Here we present a first layout of neurons in the Drosophila visual system that likely release glutamate as their major neurotransmitter. We identified 33 different types of neurons of the lamina, medulla, lobula and lobula plate. Based on the previous Golgi-staining analysis, the identified neurons are further classified into 16 major subgroups representing lamina monopolar (L), transmedullary (Tm), transmedullary Y (TmY), Y, medulla intrinsic (Mi, Mt, Pm, Dm, Mi Am), bushy T (T), translobula plate (Tlp), lobula intrinsic (Lcn, Lt, Li), lobula plate tangential (LPTCs) and lobula plate intrinsic (LPi) cell types. In addition, we found 11 cell types that were not described by the previous Golgi analysis. This classification of candidate glutamatergic neurons fosters the future neurogenetic dissection of information processing in circuits of the fly visual system.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0019472

Cites

72 of 72 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?

  • One wet-lab study reports a different expression from what we have predicted in some optic lobe cell types, in a study based on MARCM clones generated from drivers such as Cha-GAL4.

    “We note that one wet-lab study reports a different expression from what we have predicted in some optic lobe cell types, in a study based on mosaic analysis with repressible cell marker (MARCM) clones generated from drivers such as Cha-GAL4.179”

    From Neurotransmitter classification from electron microscopy images at synaptic sites in Drosophila melanogaster (2024) · cites this paper as [179]

    The Results describe a wet-lab study of candidate glutamatergic neurons in optic-lobe cell types, and the Discussion compares some findings with earlier expression reports. But the Results and Materials and Methods identify the study’s approach as Flp-FRT clonal analysis using dvGlutCNSIII-Gal4, not MARCM clones generated with Cha-GAL4. The citing paper’s own predictions cannot be assessed from this source. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [70]Duarte CB Santos PF Carvalho AP 1999 Corelease of two functionally opposite neurotransmitters by retinal amacrine cells: experimental evidence and functional significance. J Neurosci Res 58 475 479 10533040

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Raghu, S. V., & Borst, A.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology (DE)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
Corresponding author
Raghu, Shamprasad Varija
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2011-05-05
Volume
6
Issue
5
Pages
e19472
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1993569414
Cited by
58
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
Drosophila visual system, glutamatergic neurons, neurotransmitter identification, lamina, medulla, lobula, lobula plate, neuron classification, synaptic signaling
MeSH terms
Animals, Drosophila, Immunohistochemistry, Microscopy, Neurons, Visual Pathways, Glutamic Acid

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