↓ Skip to main content

Taxonomic Separation of Hippocampal Networks: Principal Cell Populations and Adult Neurogenesis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Taxonomic Separation of Hippocampal Networks: Principal Cell Populations and Adult Neurogenesis
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnana.2016.00022
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Maarten van Dijk, Shih-Hui Huang, Lutz Slomianka, Irmgard Amrein

Abstract

While many differences in hippocampal anatomy have been described between species, it is typically not clear if they are specific to a particular species and related to functional requirements or if they are shared by species of larger taxonomic units. Without such information, it is difficult to infer how anatomical differences may impact on hippocampal function, because multiple taxonomic levels need to be considered to associate behavioral and anatomical changes. To provide information on anatomical changes within and across taxonomic ranks, we present a quantitative assessment of hippocampal principal cell populations in 20 species or strain groups, with emphasis on rodents, the taxonomic group that provides most animals used in laboratory research. Of special interest is the importance of adult hippocampal neurogenesis (AHN) in species-specific adaptations relative to other cell populations. Correspondence analysis of cell numbers shows that across taxonomic units, phylogenetically related species cluster together, sharing similar proportions of principal cell populations. CA3 and hilus are strong separators that place rodent species into a tight cluster based on their relatively large CA3 and small hilus while non-rodent species (including humans and non-human primates) are placed on the opposite side of the spectrum. Hilus and CA3 are also separators within rodents, with a very large CA3 and rather small hilar cell populations separating mole-rats from other rodents that, in turn, are separated from each other by smaller changes in the proportions of CA1 and granule cells. When adult neurogenesis is included, the relatively small populations of young neurons, proliferating cells and hilar neurons become main drivers of taxonomic separation within rodents. The observations provide challenges to the computational modeling of hippocampal function, suggest differences in the organization of hippocampal information streams in rodent and non-rodent species, and support emerging concepts of functional and structural interactions between CA3 and the dentate gyrus.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 4%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 26%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 16 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Psychology 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 9 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2016.
All research outputs
#15,312,013
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#774
of 1,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,681
of 300,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#27
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.