Cited by 88Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMemory and Neural MechanismsGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Spatiotemporal dynamics of dendritic spines in the living brain

Open access
Chen, Chia-Chien, Lu, Ju, Zuo, Yi·2014·Frontiers in Neuroanatomy

Abstract

Dendritic spines are ubiquitous postsynaptic sites of most excitatory synapses in the mammalian brain, and thus may serve as structural indicators of functional synapses. Recent works have suggested that neuronal coding of memories may be associated with rapid alterations in spine formation and elimination. Technological advances have enabled researchers to study spine dynamics in vivo during development as well as under various physiological and pathological conditions. We believe that better understanding of the spatiotemporal patterns of spine dynamics will help elucidate the principles of experience-dependent circuit modification and information processing in the living brain.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review synthesizes in vivo imaging studies showing that dendritic spines are constantly formed and eliminated in the living brain, with the balance between these processes shifting across development, sensory experience, learning, and disease. It argues that understanding the spatiotemporal patterns of spine dynamics is key to elucidating experience-dependent circuit modification and information storage.

Key findings

  • Spine density changes non-monotonically over development: motility and turnover decrease between P7 and P24 in rodent barrel cortex while density rises, then elimination outpaces formation — between P28 and P42, 17% of spines are eliminated along apical dendrites of layer 5 pyramidal neurons in mouse barrel cortex versus only 5% formed (Zuo et al., 2005a,b). Large-headed spines are more stable than thin ones, and newly formed spines are more likely to be eliminated than pre-existing ones.
  • Sensory manipulations alter spine dynamics in a paradigm- and cell-type-specific manner: unilateral whisker trimming in 1-month-old mice reduced spine elimination without perturbing formation, an effect mimicked by NMDA receptor blockade; chessboard trimming promoted turnover and selectively stabilized new spines on layer 5 pyramidal neurons with complex apical tufts; monocular deprivation increased spine formation on layer 5 but not layer 2/3 neurons in binocular cortex.
  • Learning induces rapid spine formation followed by elevated elimination that returns density to baseline; the amount of spines gained during initial motor learning correlates with acquisition performance, and survival of new spines correlates with skill retention. In fear conditioning, auditory cortex showed increased formation with paired conditioning and increased elimination with unpaired conditioning, while frontal association cortex showed the opposite pattern for learning versus extinction.
  • Spine changes occur at spatially selective "hot spots": new spines formed during repeated training of the same motor task cluster, whereas spines formed during different tasks or motor enrichment do not; a spine eliminated during fear conditioning is typically replaced within 2 μm during extinction. Disease models show distinct signatures — rapid reversible spine loss in ischemia (reversible if reperfused within 20–60 min), accelerated spine loss near β-amyloid plaques, and increased turnover with failure of new spine persistence in Huntington's and MECP2-duplication models.

Methods

This is a narrative review, not a primary study. It synthesizes results from in vivo time-lapse imaging studies (predominantly multi-photon microscopy, plus whole-cell patch recording and single-spine calcium imaging) across rodent cortex, songbird, and disease models, organized thematically by development, sensory experience, learning, disease, glial contribution, and spatial patterning. No new data, sample, or statistical analysis are reported.

Limitations

The paper states that all reviewed work focuses on the postsynaptic side only, and that identifying the presynaptic partner of an imaged spine remains a technical challenge; it also notes that declarative memory is difficult to study because the hippocampus is beyond the reach of standard two-photon microscopy and declarative memories are diffusely stored. Evident from the text: as a review, it presents no primary data or quantitative synthesis, and several cited findings (e.g., clustering rules, glial roles) rest on single studies whose replication status is not discussed.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnana.2014.00028

Cites

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 124 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Premisecitation

    Stable spines mostly represent synaptic contacts.

    “While stable spines mostly represent synaptic contacts, only a small fraction of transient spines represent short-lived synaptic contacts, and the rest of them represent failed synaptogenesis (Trachtenberg et al., 2002; Knott et al., 2006; Cane et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Trachtenberg et al., 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Knott et al., 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Cane et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: In principle, spine dynamics represent synapse dynamics.
  • Premisecitation

    In 2002, two laboratories demonstrated the possibility to track the same spine in the living brain over weeks.

    “In 2002, the pioneering work from two laboratories (Grutzendler et al., 2002; Trachtenberg et al., 2002) demonstrated the possibility to track the same spine in the living brain over a long period (i.e., weeks) of time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Grutzendler et al., 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Trachtenberg et al., 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Interpretationcitation

    Spines and their structural dynamics may serve as indicators for synaptic connectivity and modifications thereof.

    “Therefore, spines and their structural dynamics may serve as indicators for synaptic connectivity and modifications thereof (Segal, 2005; Tada and Sheng, 2006; Harms and Dunaevsky, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Segal, 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Tada and Sheng, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Harms and Dunaevsky, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: Dendritic spines are the postsynaptic sites of the great majority (>90%) of excitatory glutamatergic synapses in the mammalian brain.
  • Premisecitation

    In the mouse visual cortex, depriving visual input from birth prevented the decrease in spine motility and maturation of spine morphology.

    “In the mouse visual cortex, depriving visual input from birth prevented the decrease in spine motility and maturation of spine morphology (Majewska and Sur, 2003; Tropea et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Majewska and Sur, 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Tropea et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    Only a small fraction of transient spines represent short-lived synaptic contacts.

    “While stable spines mostly represent synaptic contacts, only a small fraction of transient spines represent short-lived synaptic contacts, and the rest of them represent failed synaptogenesis (Trachtenberg et al., 2002; Knott et al., 2006; Cane et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Trachtenberg et al., 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Knott et al., 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Cane et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: In principle, spine dynamics represent synapse dynamics.
  • May combine two claims. 17
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 4
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Spine morphology and dynamics vary among neuronal types, across developmental stages, and in response to experiences such as sensory stimulation and deprivation, environmental enrichment, and various paradigms of learning.

    “Furthermore, their morphology and dynamics vary among neuronal types, across developmental stages, and in response to experiences such as sensory stimulation and deprivation, environmental enrichment, and various paradigms of learning (Holtmaat and Svoboda, 2009; Fu and Zuo, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Holtmaat and Svoboda, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Fu and Zuo, 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Both acute and chronic sensory manipulations profoundly impact spine dynamics, but the exact effect depends on the manipulation paradigm and duration, as well as the developmental stage of the animal.

    “Both acute and chronic sensory manipulations have been shown to profoundly impact spine dynamics, but the exact effect depends on the manipulation paradigm and duration, as well as the developmental stage of the animal.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Spines form, enlarge, shrink, and retract throughout the animal's lifespan.

    “From such time-lapse imaging studies a dynamic picture of spines has emerged: spines form, enlarge, shrink, and retract throughout the animal’s lifespan.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Unilateral trimming of all whiskers in 1-month-old mice for 4 or 14 days dramatically reduced spine elimination in the barrel cortex, but left spine formation largely unperturbed.

    “Unilateral trimming of all whiskers in 1-month-old mice for 4 or 14 days dramatically reduced spine elimination in the barrel cortex, but left spine formation largely unperturbed (Zuo et al., 2005b; Yu et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Zuo et al., 2005b

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Yu et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Not all spines are equally susceptible to elimination: those with large heads are more stable than thin ones.

    “Importantly, not all spines are equally susceptible to elimination: those with large heads are more stable than thin ones.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Holtmaat et al., 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Chessboard trimming promotes spine turnover and stabilizes newly formed spines selectively in a subclass of cortical neurons.

    “Such paradigm has been shown to promote spine turnover and to stabilize newly formed spines selectively in a subclass of cortical neurons (Trachtenberg et al., 2002; Holtmaat et al., 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Trachtenberg et al., 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Holtmaat et al., 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Between P28 and P42, 17% of spines are eliminated along apical dendrites of layer 5 pyramidal neurons in mouse barrel cortex, while only 5% of new spines are formed during the same period.

    “Between P28 and P42, 17% of spines are eliminated along the apical dendrites of layer 5 pyramidal neurons in the mouse barrel cortex, while only 5% of new spines are formed during the same period of time (Zuo et al., 2005a, b).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zuo et al., 2005a, b

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Spines may serve as the structural substrate for learning and memory.

    “The highly dynamic nature of dendritic spines elicits the prevalent idea that spines may serve as the structural substrate for learning and memory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: In principle, spine dynamics represent synapse dynamics.
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In the chronic pain model, elevation of spine formation rate precedes that of elimination, leading to an initial increase in spine density followed by its reduction.

    “Similar to the stroke model, elevation of spine formation rate precedes that of elimination, leading to an initial increase in spine density followed by its reduction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kim and Nabekura, 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A second monocular deprivation failed to increase spine formation further, but selectively enlarged the spines formed during the initial monocular deprivation.

    “Interestingly, a second MD failed to increase spine formation further, but selectively enlarged the spines formed during the initial MD, suggesting that new spines formed during the initial MD had functional synapses that were reactivated during the second MD (Hofer et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hofer et al., 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Injury-induced plasticity after stroke reaches its peak at 1 week post-stroke; from then on the rate of spine formation and elimination steadily decline.

    “This injury-induced plasticity reaches its peak at 1 week post-stroke; from then on the rate of spine formation and elimination steadily decline.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brown et al., 2007, 2009

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    While neurodegenerative diseases are usually associated with net spine loss, neurodevelopmental disorders exhibit diverse spine phenotypes.

    “While neurodegenerative diseases are usually associated with net spine loss, neurodevelopmental disorders exhibit diverse spine phenotypes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Following stroke, spine formation and subsequent elimination increase in the peri-infarct region, but not in cortical territories distant from the infarct or in the contralateral hemisphere.

    “Following stroke, spine formation and subsequent elimination increase in the peri-infarct region, but not in cortical territories distant from the infarct or in the contralateral hemisphere (Brown et al., 2009; Johnston et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Brown et al., 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Johnston et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The effect of monocular deprivation on spine formation was not observed in layer 2/3 neurons or in the monocular zone.

    “However this effect was not observed in layer 2/3 neurons, or in the monocular zone (Hofer et al., 2009), again indicating a cell type specific synapse remodeling.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hofer et al., 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Each disorder presents with its own hallmark abnormalities in spine dynamics, which corroborates the idea that spines are structural underpinnings for proper cognitive functioning.

    “Each disorder presents with its own hallmark abnormalities in spine dynamics, which further corroborates the idea that spines are structural underpinnings for proper cognitive functioning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: In principle, spine dynamics represent synapse dynamics.
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The motility of microglial processes and spine contact are actively regulated by sensory experience.

    “The motility of microglial processes and spine contact are actively regulated by sensory experience and are involved in spine elimination (Tremblay et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tremblay et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    All the works discussed in this review have focused on the postsynaptic side of the synapse.

    “It is worth noting that all works discussed above have focused on the postsynaptic side, which is only half of the story.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In Fragile X syndrome model animals, neither whisker trimming nor motor learning could further alter spine dynamics.

    “In vivo studies further showed that in such animals spine turnover increased in various cortical areas (Cruz-Martin et al., 2010; Pan et al., 2010; Padmashri et al., 2013), and neither whisker trimming nor motor learning could further alter spine dynamics (Pan et al., 2010; Padmashri et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Pan et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Padmashri et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The most intriguing role of glial cells is their participation at synaptic functioning and dynamics.

    “The most intriguing role of glial cells is their participation at synaptic functioning and dynamics.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In mice overexpressing MECP2, new spines are more vulnerable to elimination than in wild type mice, resulting in a net loss of spines.

    “However, new spines are more vulnerable to elimination than in wild type mice, resulting in a net loss of spines (Jiang et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jiang et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Identification of the presynaptic partner of an imaged dendritic spine remains a technical challenge, because the presynaptic axon may originate from many sources and is usually intermingled with other axonal processes.

    “However, identification of the presynaptic partner of an imaged dendritic spine remains a technical challenge, as the presynaptic axon may originate from a plethora of sources, and is usually intermingled with many other axonal processes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
21 of 21
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Dendritic spines are the postsynaptic sites of the great majority (>90%) of excitatory glutamatergic synapses in the mammalian brain.

    “They are the postsynaptic sites of the great majority (>90%) of excitatory glutamatergic synapses in the mammalian brain, and contain essential molecular components for postsynaptic signaling and plasticity.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In principle, spine dynamics represent synapse dynamics.

    “In principle, spine dynamics represent synapse dynamics.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The cerebral cortex has the ability to reorganize its circuitry in response to experiences.

    “The cerebral cortex has the amazing ability to reorganize its circuitry in response to experiences.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Chessboard trimming amplifies differences in activity levels and patterns of neighboring barrels, thereby introducing a novel sensory experience.

    “While complete whisker trimming removes sensory input globally, trimming every other whisker (“chessboard trimming”) presumably amplifies any difference in activity levels and patterns of neighboring barrels, thereby introducing a novel sensory experience.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Brief monocular deprivation increases the disparity between inputs from the two eyes.

    “Similar to chessboard trimming, brief monocular deprivation (MD) increases the disparity between the inputs from two eyes.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The hippocampus is buried beneath the cortex and beyond the reach of standard two-photon microscopy.

    “On one hand, hippocampus, the structure crucial for formation of declarative memory, is buried beneath cortex and beyond the reach of standard two-photon microscopy.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The presynaptic side (the identity and geometry of presynaptic axons and the availability of axonal boutons) is a major determinant of spine distribution and dynamics.

    “The other major determinant of spine distribution and dynamics lies at the presynaptic side: the identity and geometry of presynaptic axons and the availability of axonal boutons.”
7 of 7

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 71 · Cited by 88

Authors
Chen, C.-C., Lu, J., & Zuo, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Zuo, Yi
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
Published
2014-05-09
Volume
8
Pages
28-28
ISSN
1662-5129 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2141331098
Cited by
88
References
71
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2
FWCI
1.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroanatomy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH094449)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Keywords
dendritic spines, spine dynamics, postsynaptic sites, excitatory synapses, synaptogenesis, synaptic pruning, memory encoding, in vivo imaging, spatiotemporal patterns, brain development, neurodevelopmental disorders

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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