Cited by 113Zebrafish Biomedical Research ApplicationsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Characterization of genetically targeted neuron types in the zebrafish optic tectum

Open access
Robles, Estuardo, Smith, Stephen J., Baier, Herwig·2011·Frontiers in Neural Circuits

Abstract

The optically transparent larval zebrafish is ideally suited for in vivo analyses of neural circuitry controlling visually guided behaviors. However, there is a lack of information regarding specific cell types in the major retinorecipient brain region of the fish, the optic tectum. Here we report the characterization of three previously unidentified tectal cell types that are specifically labeled by dlx5/6 enhancer elements. In vivo laser-scanning microscopy in conjunction with ex vivo array tomography revealed that these neurons differ in their morphologies, synaptic connectivity, and neurotransmitter phenotypes. The first type is an excitatory bistratified periventricular interneuron that forms a dendritic arbor in the retinorecipient stratum fibrosum et griseum superficiale (SFGS) and an axonal arbor in the stratum griseum centrale (SGC). The second type, a GABAergic non-stratified periventricular interneuron, extends a bushy arbor containing both dendrites and axons into the SGC and the deepest sublayers of the SFGS. The third type is a GABAergic periventricular projection neuron that extends a dendritic arbor into the SGC and a long axon to the torus semicircularis, medulla oblongata, and anterior hindbrain. Interestingly, the same axons form en passant synapses within the deepest neuropil layer of the tectum, the stratum album centrale. This approach revealed several novel aspects of tectal circuitry, including: (1) a glutamatergic mode of transmission from the superficial, retinorecipient neuropil layers to the deeper, output layers, (2) the presence of interneurons with mixed dendrite/axon arbors likely involved in local processing, and (3) a heretofore unknown GABAergic tectofugal projection to midbrain and hindbrain. These observations establish a framework for studying the morphological and functional differentiation of neural circuits in the zebrafish visual system.

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 · 10.3389/fncir.2011.00001

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?

  • The OMR circuit starts in the retina, which sends signals to the brain through ten identified RGC arborization fields.

    “The complete circuit required to perform the OMR begins with the retina, which relays signals to the brain via 10 identified retinal ganglion cell (RGC) arborization fields (Figure 8) (Burrill and Easter, 1994; Robles et al., 2011).”

    From Neural control and modulation of swimming speed in the larval zebrafish (2014) · cites this paper as Robles et al., 2011

    The Introduction identifies the optomotor response as a visually guided behavior, and ‘Implications for Tectal Information Processing’ describes retinal ganglion cell axons projecting to the optic tectum. Neither passage identifies ten RGC arborization fields or establishes that the OMR circuit passes through all ten. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 48 · Cited by 113

Authors
Robles, E., Smith, S. J., & Baier, H.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Robles, Estuardo
Venue
Frontiers in Neural Circuits
Published
2011
Volume
5
Pages
1-1
ISSN
1662-5110 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2039243670
Cited by
113
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 9
FWCI
4.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neural Circuits (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Smith ScholarWorks (Smith College) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS053358)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Zebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
optic tectum, zebrafish, neuronal cell types, GABAergic projection neurons, glutamatergic neurotransmission, synaptic connectivity, torus semicircularis

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