Cited by 29Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMemory and Neural Mechanisms

The Contradictory Effects of Neuronal Hyperexcitation on Adult Hippocampal Neurogenesis

Open access
Pineda, José R., Encinas, Juan M.·2016·Frontiers in Neuroscience

Abstract

Adult hippocampal neurogenesis is a highly plastic process that responds swiftly to neuronal activity. Adult hippocampal neurogenesis can be regulated at the level of neural stem cell recruitment and activation, progenitor proliferation, as well as newborn cell survival and differentiation. An "excitation-neurogenesis" rule was proposed after the demonstration of the capability of cultured neural stem and progenitor cells to intrinsically sense neuronal excitatory activity. In vivo, this property has remained elusive although recently the direct response of neural stem cells to GABA in the hippocampus via GABAA receptors has evidenced a mechanism for a direct talk between neurons and neural stem cells. As it is pro-neurogenic, the effect of excitatory neuronal activity has been generally considered beneficial. But what happens in situations of neuronal hyperactivity in which neurogenesis can be dramatically boosted? In animal models, electroconvulsive shock markedly increases neurogenesis. On the contrary, in epilepsy rodent models, seizures induce the generation of misplaced neurons with abnormal morphological and electrophysiological properties, namely aberrant neurogenesis. We will herein discuss what is known about the mechanisms of influence of neurons on neural stem cells, as well as the severe effects of neuronal hyperexcitation on hippocampal neurogenesis.

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/fnins.2016.00074

Cites

97 of 97 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?

  • Neurogenesis is known to be elevated following hyperexcitability.

    “Among the downregulated pathways in E3S/S/P301S hippocampus, neurogenesis is known to be elevated following hyperexcitability58,59, observed in E3/P301S mice using cFOS activity mapping.”

    From The R136S mutation in the APOE3 gene confers resilience against tau pathology via inhibition of the cGAS-STING-IFN pathway (2025) · cites this paper as [59]

    The Introduction (page not provided) reports an early increase in cell proliferation after seizures and increased stem-cell activation after electroconvulsive shock. But “Activation and exhaustion of NSCs” says that, in the following weeks after seizures, neurogenesis diminishes to a minimum. The unqualified claim that neurogenesis is elevated following hyperexcitability omits this time-dependent reversal. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Neurogenesis is elevated in response to hyperexcitability.

    “Neurogenesis is known to be elevated in response to hyperexcitability53,54”

    From <i>APOE3</i> - <i>R136S</i> mutation confers resilience against tau pathology via cGAS-STING-IFN inhibition (2024) · cites this paper as [54]

    The Abstract says electroconvulsive shock markedly increases adult hippocampal neurogenesis, supporting an elevation in one model of hyperexcitation. But “Activation and exhaustion of NSCs” says seizures produce an initial boost in cell proliferation followed by a decline in neurogenesis to a minimum over the following weeks. The unqualified claim omits that time-dependent, contradictory response. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pineda, J. R., & Encinas, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Achucarro Basque Center for Neuroscience (ES)
  • Ikerbasque (ES)
Corresponding author
Encinas, Juan M.
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Published
2016-03-03
Volume
10
Pages
74-74
ISSN
1662-453X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2297003971
Cited by
29
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (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)
Funders
Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (RyC-2013-13450, RyC-2012-11137, SAF 2012-40085)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
adult hippocampal neurogenesis, neuronal hyperexcitation, neural stem cells, GABAA receptor, GABA signaling, electroconvulsive shock, epilepsy, neuronal activity regulation

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