Cited by 184Retinal Development and DisordersVisual perception and processing mechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Age-related alterations in neurons of the mouse retina

Open access
Samuel, Melanie A., Zhang, Yifeng, Meister, Markus, Sanes, Joshua R.·2011·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The behavioral consequences of age-related alterations in neural function are well documented, but less is known about their cellular bases. To characterize such changes, we analyzed 14 molecularly identified subsets of mouse retinal projection neurons (retinal ganglion cells or RGCs) and interneurons (amacrine, bipolar, and horizontal cells). The retina thinned but expanded with age, maintaining its volume. There was minimal decline in the number of RGCs, interneurons, or photoreceptors, but the diameter of RGC dendritic arbors decreased with age. Together, the increased retinal area and the decreased dendritic area may lead to gaps in RGC coverage of the visual field. Axonal arbors of RGCs in the superior colliculus also atrophied with age, suggesting that the relay of visual information to central targets may decline over time. On the other hand, the laminar restriction of RGC dendrites and the interneuronal processes that synapse on them were not detectably disturbed, and RGC subtypes exhibited distinct electrophysiological responses to complex visual stimuli. Other neuronal types aged in different ways: amacrine cell arbors did not remodel detectably, whereas horizontal cell processes sprouted into the photoreceptor layer. Bipolar cells showed arbor-specific alterations: their dendrites sprouted but their axons remained stable. In summary, retinal neurons exhibited numerous age-related quantitative alterations (decreased areas of dendritic and axonal arbors and decreased density of cells and synapses), whereas their qualitative features (molecular identity, laminar specificity, and feature detection) were largely preserved. Together, these data reveal selective age-related alterations in neural circuitry, some of which could underlie declines in visual acuity.

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.3580-11.2011

Cites

71 of 71 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?

  • Old mice develop opaque lenses and lose retinal ganglion cells in the innermost retinal layer.

    “Old mice develop opaque lenses and lose retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) in the innermost retinal layer (Calkins, 2013; Downs, 2015; Samuel et al., 2011; Wolf et al., 2000) (Figure 7J).”

    From Loss of epigenetic information as a cause of mammalian aging (2023) · cites this paper as Samuel et al., 2011

    The Discussion mentions lens opacification as an age-related optical factor, but does not establish that the study's old mice developed opaque lenses. More decisively, the Results section, “Neurons are preserved in old retina,” reports little change in retinal neuron numbers and no detectable age-related increase in cell death, contrary to the claim that old mice lose RGCs. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    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
Samuel, M. A., Zhang, Y., Meister, M., & Sanes, J. R.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Sanes, Joshua R.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2011-11-02
Volume
31
Issue
44
Pages
16033-16044
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2117429439
Cited by
184
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG032322)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS029169)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Retinal Development and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
retinal aging, retinal ganglion cells, amacrine cells, bipolar cells, horizontal cells, superior colliculus, retinal interneurons, photoreceptors, synaptic density, visual acuity loss, mouse retina, neural circuits
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aging, Animals, Axons, Dendrites, Eye Proteins, Female, Flow Cytometry, Gene Expression Regulation, Immunoglobulins, Luminescent Proteins, Male, Membrane Potentials, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Mice, Transgenic, Nerve Tissue Proteins, Neurons, Retina, Retinal Ganglion Cells, Visual Pathways, Cell Adhesion Molecules, Patch-Clamp Techniques, Thy-1 Antigens, Photoreceptor Cells, Vertebrate, Amacrine Cells, Mice, Junctional Adhesion Molecule B, 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