Cited by 80

Global transcriptome analysis of genetically identified neurons in the adult cortex

Rossner, Moritz J., Hirrlinger, Johannes, Wichert, Sven P., Boehm, Christine, Newrzella, Dieter, Hiemisch, Holger, Eisenhardt, Gisela, Stuenkel, Carolin +2 more·2006·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The enormous cellular complexity of the brain is a major obstacle for gene expression profiling of neurological disease models, because physiologically relevant changes of transcription in a specific neuronal subset are likely to be lost in the presence of other neurons and glia. We solved this problem in transgenic mice by labeling genetically defined cells with a nuclear variant of GFP. When combined with laser-directed microdissection, intact RNA from unfixed, freeze-dried sections can be isolated, which is a prerequisite for high-quality global transcriptome analysis. Here, we compared gene expression profiles between pyramidal motor neurons and pyramidal somatosensory neurons captured from layer V of the adult neocortex. One striking feature of motor neurons is the elevated expression of ribosomal genes and genes involved in ATP synthesis. This suggests a molecular adaptation of the upper motor neurons to longer axonal projections and higher electrical activity. These molecular signatures were not detected when cortical layers and microareas were analyzed in toto. Additionally, we used microarrays to determine the global mRNA expression profiles of microdissected Purkinje cells and cellularly complex cerebellar cortex microregions. In summary, our analysis shows that cellularly complex targets lead to averaged gene expression profiles that lack substantial amounts of cell type-specific information. Thus, cell type-restricted sampling strategies are mandatory in the CNS. The combined use of a genetic label with laser-microdissection offers an unbiased approach to map patterns of gene expression onto practically any cell type of the brain.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.0468-06.2006

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • Until recently, cell type based expression profiling in the brain mainly relied on physical enrichment of target cell populations such as laser capture microdissection, fluorescence-activated cell sorting, or manual sorting.

    “Until recently, cell type based expression profiling in the brain has mainly relied on physical enrichment of target cell population such as laser capture microdissection (Meguro et al., 2004, Rossner et al., 2006), fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) (Tomomura et al., 2001, Lobo et al., 2006), or manual sorting (Sugino et al., 2006).”

    From Cell-Type-Based Analysis of MicroRNA Profiles in the Mouse Brain (2012) · cites this paper as Rossner et al., 2006

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
Rossner, M. J., Hirrlinger, J., Wichert, S. P., Boehm, C., Newrzella, D., Hiemisch, H., Eisenhardt, G., Stuenkel, C., von Ahsen, O., & Nave, K.-A.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2006-09-27
Volume
26
Issue
39
Pages
9956-9966
ISSN
  • 0270-6474
  • 1529-2401
Cited by
80
References
5
Language
en

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