Cited by 85Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Decoupling Eye-Specific Segregation from Lamination in the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus

Open access
Huberman, Andrew D., Stellwagen, David, Chapman, Barbara·2002·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

To determine whether there is a critical period for development of eye-specific layers in the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN), we prevented the normal segregation of retinogeniculate afferents and then allowed an extended period of time for recovery. After recovery, both anatomy and physiology revealed strictly nonoverlapping territories of input from the two eyes. However, the normal stereotyped pattern of eye-specific afferent and cellular layers never developed. Instead, the eye-specific territories of afferent input emerged as variable and disorganized patches with no corresponding interlaminar spaces in the LGN. These findings reveal a critical period for coordinating the development of three processes in the LGN: the segregation of afferents from the two eyes, the spatial organization of those afferents into layers, and the alignment of postsynaptic cytoarchitecture with the afferent inputs. We also assessed the physiological consequences of preventing normal lamination and found normal single-cell responses and topographic representation of visual space in the LGN. Clusters of ON-center and OFF-center LGN cells were segregated from one another as in normal animals. However, the organization of ON and OFF sublaminas in the treated animals was disrupted.

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.22-21-09419.2002

Cites

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?

  • Monocular epibatidine injection preserves eye-specific segregation and induces the affected weaker projections to lose their territory preferentially.

    “Previous work has shown that injecting epibatidine binocularly blocks eye-specific segregation in dLGN, whereas injecting epibatidine monocularly preserves eye-specific segregation, inducing the affected weaker projections to lose their territory preferentially.”

    From Astrocytes mediate synapse elimination through MEGF10 and MERTK pathways (2013) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Results section reports that binocular epibatidine treatment prevented eye-specific segregation in ferrets at P10. The copy describes territory gained by an active eye at the expense of an inactive eye only in a passage indexed as the Abstract; the non-abstract passages do not establish that monocular epibatidine preserves segregation or preferentially reduces the treated projection. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Binocular epibatidine injection blocks eye-specific segregation in dLGN.

    “Previous work has shown that injecting epibatidine binocularly blocks eye-specific segregation in dLGN, whereas injecting epibatidine monocularly preserves eye-specific segregation, inducing the affected weaker projections to lose their territory preferentially.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huberman, A. D., Stellwagen, D., & Chapman, B.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2002-11-01
Volume
22
Issue
21
Pages
9419-9429
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1664668314
Cited by
85
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (EY12576)
  • National Eye Institute (R01EY011369, EY12576, EY11369, P30EY012576)
  • National Cancer Institute (P01CA095616)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
lateral geniculate nucleus, eye-specific segregation, critical period, interlaminar space, topographic representation, visual development
MeSH terms
Aging, Animals, Cholera Toxin, Critical Period, Psychological, Drug Administration Routes, Electrodes, Implanted, Eye, Ferrets, Geniculate Bodies, Pyridines, Retina, Retinal Ganglion Cells, Rhodamines, Visual Fields, Visual Pathways, Bridged Bicyclo Compounds, Heterocyclic, Fluorescein, Recovery of Function

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