Cited by 269Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchAxon Guidance and Neuronal SignalingNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms

Activity-regulated dynamic behavior of early dendritic protrusions: evidence for different types of dendritic filopodia

Open access
Portera-Cailliau, Carlos, Pan, David T., Yuste, Rafael·2003·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Dendritic filopodia are long and thin protrusions that occur predominantly during early development of the mammalian CNS. The function of dendritic filopodia is unknown, but they could serve to form early synapses, to generate spines, or to regulate dendritic branching and growth. We used two-photon imaging to characterize the motile behavior of dendritic protrusions during early postnatal development (P2-P12) in pyramidal neurons from acute slices of mouse neocortex. Dendritic protrusions in immature neurons are highly dynamic, and this motility is actin based. Motility and turnover of these early protrusions decreases throughout development, mirroring an increase in their average lifetime and density. Interestingly, density, motility, and length of filopodia are greater in dendritic growth cones than in dendritic shafts. These growth cones disappear after P5. Blocking synaptic transmission globally using TTX or calcium-free solutions led to a 40-120% increase in the density and length of dendritic filopodia in shafts but not in growth cones. Moreover, blocking ionotropic glutamate receptors resulted in an approximately 35% decrease in the density and turnover of shaft filopodia, whereas focal glutamate application led to a 75% increase in the length of shaft filopodia, but neither manipulation affected growth cone filopodia. Our results support the existence of two populations of filopodia, in growth cones and shafts, which are differentially regulated by neuronal activity. We propose that filopodia in dendritic growth cones are involved in dendritic growth and branching in an activity-independent manner, whereas shaft filopodia are responsible for activity-dependent synaptogenesis and, in some cases, may become dendritic spines.

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.23-18-07129.2003

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Spine motility permits the sampling of large numbers of potential presynaptic partners before connections are stabilized via activity-dependent mechanisms.

    “This would be advantageous, because spine motility permits the sampling of large numbers of potential presynaptic partners before connections are stabilized via activity-dependent mechanisms (Jontes and Smith, 2000; Portera-Cailliau et al., 2003).”

    From The E3 ubiquitin ligase IDOL regulates synaptic ApoER2 levels and is important for plasticity and learning (2017) · cites this paper as Portera-Cailliau et al., 2003

    The Introduction says spines are motile, and the discussion section 'Shaft filopodia: a role in synaptogenesis or spinogenesis' proposes that motile shaft filopodia seek suitable synaptic partners and that dendritic protrusions stabilize as activity increases. But the proposed partner-search mechanism concerns filopodia rather than spines; the paper does not establish that spine motility samples large numbers of partners before connections stabilize. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Portera-Cailliau, C., Pan, D. T., & Yuste, R.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2003-08-06
Volume
23
Issue
18
Pages
7129-7142
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1834463603
Cited by
269
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 21
FWCI
4.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Parkinson Foundation
  • John Merck Fund
  • Parkinsonfonden
  • National Eye Institute (R01EY013237, EY 13237)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Axon Guidance and Neuronal Signaling
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Keywords
dendritic filopodia, dendritic protrusions, dendritic shafts, dendritic spine formation, synaptogenesis, activity-dependent regulation, actin-based motility, glutamate receptors, TTX, dendritic branching, pyramidal neurons, neocortex
MeSH terms
Animals, Dendrites, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Mice, Transgenic, Synaptic Transmission, Pseudopodia, Somatosensory Cortex, Tetrodotoxin, Video Recording, Visual Cortex, Receptors, Glutamate, Pyramidal Cells, Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists, Glutamic Acid, Microscopy, Video, Internet, Growth Cones, Mice, In Vitro Techniques

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