Cited by 8Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsMemory and Neural MechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Modelling adult neurogenesis in the aging rodent hippocampus: a midlife crisis

Open access
Arellano, Jon I., Rakic, Pasko·2024·Frontiers in Neuroscience

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Contrary to humans, adult hippocampal neurogenesis in rodents is not controversial. And in the last three decades, multiple studies in rodents have deemed adult neurogenesis essential for most hippocampal functions. The functional relevance of new neurons relies on their distinct physiological properties during their maturation before they become indistinguishable from mature granule cells. Most functional studies have used very young animals with robust neurogenesis. However, this trait declines dramatically with age, questioning its functional relevance in aging animals, a caveat that has been mentioned repeatedly, but rarely analyzed quantitatively. In this meta-analysis, we use data from published studies to determine the critical functional window of new neurons and to model their numbers across age in both mice and rats. Our model shows that new neurons with distinct functional profile represent about 3% of the total granule cells in young adult 3-month-old rodents, and their number decline following a power function to reach less than 1% in middle aged animals and less than 0.5% in old mice and rats. These low ratios pose an important logical and computational caveat to the proposed essential role of new neurons in the dentate gyrus, particularly in middle aged and old animals, a factor that needs to be adequately addressed when defining the relevance of adult neurogenesis in hippocampal function.

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.2024.1416460

Cites

5 of 5 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

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

Authors
Arellano, J. I., & Rakic, P.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Arellano, Jon I.
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Published
2024-06-03
Volume
18
Pages
1416460-1416460
ISSN
1662-453X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4399290282
Cited by
8
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3
FWCI
1.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (DA023999)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA023999, DA023999, R37DA023999)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
adult hippocampal neurogenesis, aging, dentate gyrus, granule cells, power function model, mice, rats, hippocampal function

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