Pyramidal neurons of granular prefrontal cortex of the galagoComplexity in evolution of the psychic cell in primates.код для вставкиСкачать
THE ANATOMICAL RECORD PART A 285A:610 – 618 (2005) Pyramidal Neurons of Granular Prefrontal Cortex of the Galago: Complexity in Evolution of the Psychic Cell in Primates GUY N. ELSTON,1* ALEJANDRA ELSTON,1 VIVIEN CASAGRANDE,2 AND JON H. KAAS3 1 Vision, Touch and Hearing Research Centre, School of Biomedical Sciences & Queensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia 2 Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 3 Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee ABSTRACT Typically, cognitive abilities of humans have been attributed to their greatly expanded cortical mantle, granular prefrontal cortex (gPFC) in particular. Recently we have demonstrated systematic differences in microstructure of gPFC in different species. Speciﬁcally, pyramidal cells in adult human gPFC are considerably more spinous than those in the gPFC of the macaque monkey, which are more spinous than those in the gPFC of marmoset and owl monkeys. As most cortical dendritic spines receive at least one excitatory input, pyramidal cells in these different species putatively receive different numbers of inputs. These differences in the gPFC pyramidal cell phenotype may be of fundamental importance in determining the functional characteristics of prefrontal circuitry and hence the cognitive styles of the different species. However, it remains unknown as to why the gPFC pyramidal cell phenotype differs between species. Differences could be attributed to, among other things, brain size, relative size of gPFC, or the lineage to which the species belong. Here we investigated pyramidal cells in the dorsolateral gPFC of the prosimian galago to extend the basis for comparison. We found these cells to be less spinous than those in human, macaque, and marmoset. © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Key words: striate; extrastriate; cortex; dendrite; spine; Lucifer yellow Pyramidal cells in the cerebral cortex vary in size, branching pattern, spine density, and the total number of dendritic spines (Lund et al., 1993; Elston and Rosa, 1997, 1998, 2000; Elston et al., 1999a, 1999b; Elston, 2000, 2003a; Jacobs et al., 2001). These structural differences are thought to inﬂuence sampling geometry, compartmentalization of processing, cooperativity between inputs, and the total number of excitatory inputs integrated within their arbors (for reviews, see Jacobs and Scheibel, 2002; Elston, 2003b, 2003c). In addition, marked differences have been reported in the patterns of axon projections of pyramidal cells in different cortical areas and species (Bugbee and Goldman-Rakic, 1983; Preuss and Goldman-Rakic, 1991; Lund et al., 1993). © 2005 WILEY-LISS, INC. In a series of studies, we have attempted to correlate the relationship between pyramidal cell structure, patterns of Grant sponsor: the J.S. McDonnell Foundation; Grant sponsor: the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. *Correspondence to: Guy N. Elston, Vision, Touch and Hearing Research Centre, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, Queensland, 4072, Australia. Fax: 61-7-33654522. E-mail: [email protected] Received 3 August 2004; Accepted 5 January 2005 DOI 10.1002/ar.a.20198 Published online 23 May 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). PYRAMIDAL CELLS IN GALAGO PFC Fig. 1. A: Photomicrograph of a sagittal section of the galago brain illustrating, in particular, cytoarchitecture in the frontal and parietal lobes. Higher-power micrographs highlight differences in the cytoarchitecture between (B) granular prefrontal cortex, (C) premotor cortex, and (D) the primary motor area. connectivity, and function. These studies were focused primarily in visual cortex, where a great deal is known about the response properties of neurons and visual function. These studies revealed systematic differences in pyramidal cell structure in visual cortical areas, which parallel systematic differences in their function (for reviews, see Elston, 2003b, 2003c). For example, there is a consistent trend for pyramidal cells of progressively more complex structure with anterior progression through occipitotemporal cortical areas, which parallel differences in their functional complexity and discharge properties. Systematic differences in pyramidal cell structure in somatosensory, motor, and limbic cortex also parallel functional specializations of neurons contained within (Elston and Rockland, 2002; Elston et al., 2005a). In the present investigation, we extend our studies of pyramidal cell structure in prefrontal cortex. Presently available data reveal that pyramidal cells in adult human granular prefrontal cortex (gPFC) are considerably more branched and more spinous than those in gPFC of the macaque monkey, which are more branched and more spinous than those in gPFC of marmoset and owl monkeys. These data suggest that pyramidal cells in human receive more excitatory inputs than those in the macaque monkey and compartmentalize these inputs to a greater degree. Thus, the functional capacity of the individual cells is likely to be greater in human than in macaque- 611 Fig. 2. Photomicrograph of the lateral aspect of the brain of the human, macaque monkey, marmoset monkey, owl monkey, and galago. The extent of granular prefrontal cortex is represented by stipple. Scale bar ⫽ 2 cm for human and 1 cm for all other species. ,greater in macaque than owl monkey, and so on (cf Poirazi and Mel, 2001). These data led us to question how specialization in pyramidal cell structure observed in extant species may have evolved. Presently available data in humans, macaques, marmosets, and owl monkeys suggest at least two possibilities. Differences in the gPFC pyramidal cell phenotype could vary between different primate lineages; for example, highly complex pyramidal cell structure may be restricted to simians or anthropoids. Alternatively, the structural complexity of gPFC pyramidal cells may reﬂect the extent of gPFC expansion, irrespective of lineage. In a bid to test these two possibilities, we studied pyramidal cell structure in the galago, a prosimian primate with a well-developed gPFC (Fig. 1). The lorisiform prosimians, which include the galago, have been separated from the simian lineage for over 50 million years (Martin, 1990). Importantly, the galago has a smaller granular prefrontal cortex than that in the marmoset (Fig. 2) (Preuss and Goldman-Rakic, 1991). Consequently, if pyramidal cells in the gPFC of the galago are less branched and less spinous than those in the marmoset, the complexity of the gPFC pyramidal cell phenotype is likely to reﬂect the relative expansion of gPFC. Alternatively, if pyramidal cells in the gPFC of the galago are more branched and more spinous than those in the marmoset, other features are likely to inﬂuence the cell phenotype. MATERIALS AND METHODS Galagos used in the present study (G1 and G2, 3.5 and 4 year old males, respectively) were the same as those 612 ELSTON ET AL. Fig. 3. Schematic of the galago brain and various cortical areas that have been identiﬁed by cyto- and myelarchitectonic, connectional, and mapping experiments. Note the motor areas that have been identiﬁed in the frontal lobe, including the primary (M1), supplementary (SMA), premotor dorsal (PMD), premotor ventral (PMV) areas. Anterior to the arcuate sulcus lies the granular prefrontal cortex, which includes the region of cortex extending from the frontal eye ﬁeld (FEF) to the frontal pole. Neurons were injected in gPFC in both cases; however, the exact location in which neurons were injected varied slightly between galago 1 (G1) and galago 2 (G2). Modiﬁed from Kaas (2003). used in a previous study (Elston et al., 2005b). Brieﬂy, animals were overdosed with sodium pentobarbitone and perfused with 0.95% saline in PB (0.1 M phosphate buffer, pH 7.2), followed by 4% paraformaldehyde in PB. Cortices were ﬂat-mounted and left in the 4% paraformaldehyde in PB for 12 hr at 4°C. Blocks including the entire frontal lobe were cut tangentially to the cortical surface and were sectioned (250 m) with the aid of a Vibratome. The region corresponding to dorsolateral granular prefrontal cortex, anterior and medial to the frontal eye ﬁeld (Wu et al., 2000; Wu and Kaas, 2003), was selected for study (Fig. 3). Individual neurons were visualized under ﬂuorescence excitation by ﬁrst prelabeling the sections with 10⫺5 mol/L 4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (D9542; Sigma) in PB. Cells were injected [8% Lucifer Yellow (L-0259; Sigma) in 0.1 M Tris buffer; pH 7.4] at the base of layer III. Because of the presence of a distinct granular layer (e.g., Fig. 1B) in the PFC of the galago [by deﬁnition prefrontal cortex is granular (Brodmann, 1913)], it was relatively easy to identify layer III and inject cells at the base of layer III. Three criteria are used to determine that cells are injected at the base of layer III. In the ﬁrst instance, the unprocessed serial tangential sections cut from the ﬂat-mounted blocks are placed on a black background and their color com- pared: supragranular sections are much whiter than the granular and infragranular sections. Second, the density of cell bodies clearly differs between supragranular, granular, and infragranular sections when visualized under UV excitation (e.g., see Fig. 3 of Elston and Rosa, 1997), allowing distinction between these layers. Third, by injecting cells in successive sections, it is easy to distinguish and identify the section that contains the granular layer by cell type. In addition, the base of layer III is relatively easily detected while injecting as the transition between layers III and IV can be detected visually while injecting. Following cell injection, the tissue was processed with an antibody to Lucifer Yellow (LY) for 5 days at a concentration of 1:400,000 in stock solution [2% bovine serum albumin (Sigma A3425), 1% Triton X-100 (BDH 30632), 5% sucrose in 0.1 mol/l phosphate buffer]. Anti-LY was detected by a species-speciﬁc biotinylated secondary antibody (Amersham RPN 1004; 1:200 in stock solution for 2 hr), followed by a biotin-horseradish peroxidase complex (Amersham RPN1051; 1:200 in 0.1 mol/l phosphate buffer). Labeling was revealed using 3,3⬘-diaminobenzidine (DAB; Sigma D 8001; 1:200 in 0.1 mol/l phosphate buffer) as the chromogen (for details of cell, ﬁlling, immunohistochemical processing, conﬁrmation of the laminar lacoation of injected neurons, and methods of quantiﬁcation, see Elston and Rosa, 1997, 1998). Cells were reconstructed from the 250 m thick slices. Neurons that had an unambiguous apical dendrite were located at the base of layer III and had the complete basal dendritic arbor contained within the section were drawn with the aid of a camera lucida attachment coupled to a Zeiss Axioplan microscope. A polygon joining the outermost distal tips of the basal dendrites was drawn over each cell and the area contained within was determined with the aid of NIH Image (Elston and Rosa, 1997). Complexity of the dendritic branching structure was quantiﬁed by Sholl analysis (Sholl, 1953). Spine density was determined as a function of distance from the cell body to the distal tips of the dendrites for complete reconstructions of 10 randomly selected horizontally projecting basal dendrites of different pyramidal cells (e.g., Eayrs and Goodhead, 1959; Valverde, 1967; Elston, 2001). Correction factors used in Golgi studies when quantifying spines (e.g., Feldman and Peters, 1979) were not used in the present study as the DAB reaction product allows the visualization of spines that issue from the underside of dendrites. No distinction was made between the different types of spines: stubby, mushroom, and thin spines were all included in the counts. The tangential dimension of somata was determined using standard features of NIH Image. The total number of spines located in the basal dendritic arbor of the average pyramidal cell was calculated by multiplying the average number of dendritic branches per Sholl annul by the average spine density for the corresponding annul and summing over all successive annuls included in the dendritic arbor (see Elston, 2001). RESULTS Ninety-six neurons were injected at the base of layer III in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (59 in B1 and 37 in G2), 47 of which were included for analyses according to selection criteria outlined in the Materials and Methods section (20 in G1 and 27 in G2). We made no attempt to determine which prefrontal areas these cells were sampled from, but it was likely that a large portion of them were sampled PYRAMIDAL CELLS IN GALAGO PFC 613 Fig. 4. Photomicrographs of the basal dendritic arbors pyramidal cells injected with Lucifer Yellow at the base of layer III in the dorsolateral granular prefrontal cortex that were processed for a light-stable DAB reaction product. Scale bar ⫽ 50 m. anterior to the frontal eye ﬁeld (FEF; Fig. 4). Data for these cells was compared with those of the primary (V1), second (V2), dorsolateral (DL), and inferotemporal (IT) visual areas sampled in the same hemisphere of these animals (Elston et al., 2005b). Basal Dendritic Arbor Size In galago 1, the average size of the basal dendritic arbors of layer III pyramidal cells was 91.3 ⫾ 4.97 ⫻ 103 m2 (mean ⫾ standard error) and that in galago 2 was 118 ⫾ 4.32 ⫻ 103 m2 (Fig. 5). In both animals, the arbors of layer III pyramidal cells in gPFC were larger than those of cells in V1, V2, and DL. One-way analyses of variance revealed these differences to be signiﬁcant in both G1 (F(4,85) ⫽ 17.8; P ⬍ 0.001) and G2 (F(3,71) ⫽ 78.8; P ⬍ 0.001). Complexity of Basal Dendritic Arbors Cells in PFC had a peak dendritic complexity of 27.1 ⫾ 3.49 (mean ⫾ SEM) in G1 and 27.9 ⫾ 3.67 in G2 (Fig. 5). Repeated-measures ANOVAs revealed the branching patterns of cells to be signiﬁcantly different between cortical areas in G1 (intercept, F(1,81) ⫽ 700, P ⬍ 0.001; cortical area, F(4,81) ⫽ 32.8, P ⬍ 0.001) and G2 (intercept, F(1, 68) ⫽ 1351, P ⬍ 0.001; cortical area, F(3,68) ⫽ 53.2, P ⬍ 0.001). The number of branches in the basal dendritic arbors of neurons in PFC was higher than that in V1, V2, and DL but lower than that in IT (Fig. 5). Spine Densities of Basal Dendrites The peak average spine density in G1 was 15.7 ⫾ 3.02 (mean ⫾ SD) at a distance of 101–110 m from the cell body. That in G2 was 16.0 ⫾ 2.79 at the same distance from the cell body (Fig. 5). Repeated-measures ANOVAs revealed a signiﬁcant difference in the distribution of spines along the dendrites of pyramidal cells in G1 (intercept, F(1,32) ⫽ 707.8, P ⬍ 0.001; cortical area, F(4,32) ⫽ 57.3, P ⬍ 0.001) and G2 (intercept, F(1,36) ⫽ 1.62 ⫻ 103, P ⬍ 0.001; cortical area, F(3,36) ⫽ 112.3, P ⬍ 0.001). Posthoc analysis revealed that spine density was higher in 614 ELSTON ET AL. Fig. 5 PYRAMIDAL CELLS IN GALAGO PFC 615 Fig. 6. Estimates of the total number of spines in the basal dendritic arbor of the average pyramidal cell in granular prefrontal cortex in the young mature adult galago, marmoset monkey, macaque monkey, and human. Note that there is a trend for a systematic increase in the total number of spines in the basal dendritic arbor of pyramidal cells with increasing size of gPFC. Individual values obtained from G1 and G2 are illustrated as individual columns headed galago (left and right column, respectively). Relative interindividual differences in the pyramidal cell phenotype in gPFC of the galago may be attributable to differences in the age of the animals (3.5 vs. 4 years old), the differing gender of the animals, or reﬂect natural variation or differences in the region from where cells were sampled. Data from Aotus (Elston, 2003a) are not compared here because of the marked difference in the age of the animal from which those data were sampled. PFC than all other areas sampled in both G1 and G2. By multiplying the spine density, averaged over 25 m segments of dendrite, by the number of branches recorded over the corresponding segment, we were able to estimate the total number of dendritic spines in the basal dendritic arbor of the average layer III pyramidal neuron. In galago 1, the average cell had 3,219 spines in its basal dendritic arbor, which in galago 2 had 3,759 spines (Fig. 6). ramidal cells has been quantiﬁed and compared with that of pyramidal cells in other cortical areas sampled from the same cortical hemisphere. This comparative approach has revealed new insights into specialization of the pyramidal cell phenotype in the granular prefrontal cortex of different primate species. The results of earlier studies suggested that the highly complex phenotype reported in gPFC of humans and macaque monkeys may be restricted to higher primates. The present data are consistent with this theory. By quantifying the differences in pyramidal cell structure in different species, we are gaining new insight into the thinking of Ramon y Cajal (1893) when, based on his comparative data, he concluded that the pyramidal cell is the “psychic cell.” Our ﬁndings suggest that specializaton of pyramidal cell phenotype may be an important factor during the evolution of increasingly complex intellect in primates. How these differences in cortical circuitry may inﬂuence cognitive style, particularly that in primates, remains to be determined. However, there are multiple converging lines of evidence to suggest a parallel between pyramidal cell structure and cognitive ability. For example, decline in cognitive ability with aging is paralleled by a decrease in dendritic branching and spine loss (Scheibel et al., 1975, 1976; de Brabander et al., 1998; Page et al., 2002) and the relatively impoverished structure of pyramidal cells in the brains of individuals with Down syndrome and fragile X parallel cognitive abilities (Marin-Padilla, 1976; Huttenlocher, 1979; Suetsugu and Mehraein, 1980; Takashima et al., 1981; Leuba, 1983; Hinton et al., 1991; Dierssen et al., 2002; for review, see Kaufmann and Moser, 2000; Dierssen et al., 2003). In addition, pyramidal cells in experimental animals reared in an enriched environment have more complex structure, and the animals perform better on behavioral tasks, than animals that Somal Areas The average size of the somata of layer III pyramidal cells in G1 was 202 ⫾ 44 ⫻ 103 m2 (mean ⫾ standard deviation), and that in G2 was 247 ⫾ 35 ⫻ 103 m2, being on average larger than those of cells in other areas (Fig. 5). One-way analyses of variance revealed these differences to be signiﬁcant in both G1 (F(4,85) ⫽ 18.02; P ⬍ 0.001) and G2 (F(3,71) ⫽ 188; P ⬍ 0.001). Posthoc analysis revealed that cells in PFC had signiﬁcantly larger somata than those in V1, V2, DL, and IT. DISCUSSION The present study is one of several morphological investigations in which the structure of prefrontal cortical py- Fig. 5. A: Frequency histograms of the size of the basal dendritic arbors of layer III pyramidal neurons in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC; black) dorsolateral visual area (DL; blue), second visual area (V2; green), and the primary visual area (V1; orange). B: Plots of the number of dendritic intersections of the basal dendrites of pyramidal neurons as determined by Sholl analysis. C: Plots of the number of dendritic spines per 10 m segment of dendrite, as a function of distance from the cell body, in the basal dendritic arbors of layer III pyramidal neurons. D: Frequency histograms of somal areas of pyramidal neurons. Error bars ⫽ standard deviations. 616 ELSTON ET AL. Fig. 8. Graph illustrating the size of granular prefrontal cortex relative to the surface area of the entire cortex of the human, chimpanzee, gibbon, mandril, baboon, macaque monkey, long-tailed monkey, capuchin monkey, marmoset monkey, black lemur, dwarf lemur, fruit bat, dog, cat rabbit, hedgehog, armadillo, and opossum (taken from Brodmann, 1913). Regression analysis revealed that exclusion of the human (long dashed line) and the human and chimpanzee (short dashed line) result in slopes of lesser gradient than regression analysis of all species (solid black line), suggesting disproportionate expansion of gPFC in human and chimpanzee. Fig. 7. Graphs illustrating differences in the number of dendritic branches (top) and spines density (bottom) in the basal dendritic trees of layer III pyramidal cells in granular prefrontal cortex of human (red), macaque monkey (orange), marmoset monkey (blue), and the galago (cream). Data taken from Elston et al. (2001) and the present results. have been reared in a nonenriched environment (e.g., Greenough et al., 1973, 1985; Dierssen et al., 2002; for reviews, see Harris, 1999; Kintsova and Greenough, 1999; Wooley, 1999; Elston and DeFelipe, 2002). While there is a growing body of evidence to suggest a link between pyramidal cell structure and behavioral abilities, less is known as to how aspects of pyramidal cell structure, such as the size or branching pattern of their dendritic arbors, or their spine density, may directly affect cellular and systems function. Our estimates of the number of spines in the basal dendritic trees of layer III pyramidal cells reveal that those in gPFC of the galago are 7 times more spinous than those in its V1, those in macaque gPFC are 17 times more spinous than those in galago V1, and those in human gPFC are on average 30 times more spinous than those in galago V1 (present results; Elston et al., 2001), making it highly likely that cells in these different species receive different numbers of asymmetrical (excitatory) inputs (for reviews, see Elston, 2002, 2003b, 2003c; Jacobs and Scheibel, 2002). In addition, differences in the number of branches may inﬂuence the degree to which processing of these inputs is compartmentalized within the dendritic arbors of pyramidal cells in gPFC of the different species. More spinous cells such as those in gPFC of human, for example, are more branched than the less spinous cells in galago gPFC, imparting different functional capabilities: cells with more dendritic branches have a greater capacity than cells with fewer dendritic branches (e.g., Poirazi and Mel, 2001). Differences in the branching structure also inﬂuence the propagation of in- puts to the soma (Vetter et al., 2001). Furthermore, circuits composed of neurons with complex branching pattern such as those observed in human gPFC, which are also characterized by high spine density (peak of 32.5 ⫾ 1.64 spines per 10 m), have a greater potential for plastic change than circuits composed of less branched cells such as those in galago gPFC with lower spine density (16.0 ⫾ 2.78) (Stepanyants et al., 2002). Differences in the dendritic structure of pyramidal cells in gPFC of different primate species, coupled with differences in patterns of intrinsic connectivity (Bugbee and Goldman-Rakic, 1983; Preuss and Goldman-Rakic, 1991), may inﬂuence the potential for resonant excitation via recurrent collaterals, which is believed to be important in mnemonic processing (for reviews, see Yuste and Tank, 1996; Koch, 1997; Häusser et al., 2000; Magee, 2000; Euler and Denk, 2001; Segev et al., 2001; Wang, 2001). Given the variation in the structural complexity of the mature pyramidal cell phenotype in gPFC of different species (Fig. 7), and the behavioral implications of these differences, it was natural to ask why they occur. One interpretation is that pyramidal cells have become more spinous during expansion of gPFC (Fig. 8). The present data are consistent with this interpretation. For example, gPFC has a surface area of 148 mm2 in marmoset, 1,733 mm2 in macaque, and 39,287 mm2 in man (Brodmann, 1913; for translation, see Elston and Garey, 2004), and complexity of pyramidal cell structure increases through these species. These data may be interpreted as evidence that pyramidal cell structure necessarily becomes more complex during cortical expansion. However, this is not the case. The primary visual area has also undergone considerable expansion in size in primates. That in the macaque (1,102 mm2) is considerably larger than that in galago (343 mm2), which is larger than that in the marmoset (198 mm2) (Brodmann, 1913), yet the number of spines found in the arbors of pyramidal cells in these species does not follow a similar progression [735, 556, and 699, respectively; the ﬁrst number is the average from PYRAMIDAL CELLS IN GALAGO PFC animals RM12, RM13, MF1, and MF2 (Elston et al., 2004a); the second number is the average from animals G1 and G2 (Elston et al., 2004b); the third number is the average from animal BS10 (Elston et al., 1999b)]. Thus, it appears as though circuitry or, more speciﬁcally, pyramidal cell structure has evolved differently in V1 and gPFC. In future studies, it will be worthwhile to study the apical dendrites of these neurones, as well as pyramidal cells in other cortical layers (e.g., Elston and Rosa, 2000). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank Iwona Stepniewska, Laura Trice, Laura Ferris, and Brendan Zeitsch for technical help. LITERATURE CITED Brodmann K. 1913. Neue forschungsergebnisse der Grosshirnrindenanatomie mit besonderer Berücksichtung anthropologischer Fragen. Geselsch Deuts Naturf Artze 85:200 –240. Bugbee NM, Goldman-Rakic PS. 1983. Columnar organization of corticocortical projections in squirrel and rhesus monkeys: similarity of column width in species differing in cortical volume. J Comp Neurol 220:355–364. de Brabander JM, Kramers RKJ, Ulyings HBM. 1998. Layer-speciﬁc dendritic regression of pyramidal cells with ageing in the human prefrontal cortex. Eur J Neurosci 10:1261–1269. Dierssen M, Benavides-Piccione R, Martı́nez-Cué C, Estivill X, Flórez J, Elston GN, DeFelipe J. 2002. Alterations of neocortical pyramidal cell phenotype in the TS65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome: effects of environmental enrichment. Cereb Cortex 13:758 –764. Dierssen M, Benavides-Piccione R, Martı́nez-Cué C, Estivill X, Baamonde C, Fillat M, Martı́nez de Lagrán X, Altafaj FJ, Elston GN, DeFelipe J. 2003. Genotype-phenotype neural correlates in trisomy 21. In: Rondal JA, Rasore-Quartino A, Soresi S, editors. The adult with Down syndrome: a new challenge for society. London: Whurr Publishers. p 15–30. Eayrs JT, Goodhead B. 1959. Postnatal development of the cerebral cortex in the rat. J Anat 93:385– 402. Elston GN, Rosa MGP. 1997. The occipitoparietal pathway of the macaque monkey: comparison of pyramidal cell morphology in layer III of functionally related cortical visual areas. Cereb Cortex 7:432– 452. Elston GN, Rosa MGP. 1998. Morphological variation of layer III pyramidal neurones in the occipitotemporal pathway of the macaque monkey visual cortex. Cereb Cortex 8:278 –294. Elston GN, Tweedale R, Rosa MGP. 1999a. Cortical integration in the visual system of the macaque monkey: large scale morphological differences of pyramidal neurones in the occipital, parietal and temporal lobes. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 266:1367–1374. Elston GN, Tweedale R, Rosa MGP. 1999b. Cellular heterogeneity in cerebral cortex: a study of the morphology of pyramidal neurones in visual areas of the marmoset monkey. J Comp Neurol 415:33–51. Elston GN. 2000. Pyramidal cells of the frontal lobe: all the more spinous to think with. J Neurosci 20:RC95(1– 4). Elston GN, Rosa MGP. 2000. Pyramidal cells, patches, and cortical columns: a comparative study of infragranular neurons in TEO, TE, and the superior temporal polysensory area of the macaque monkey. J Neurosci 20:RC117(1–5). Elston GN. 2001. Interlaminar differences in the pyramidal cell phenotype in cortical areas 7m and STP (the superior temporal polysensory area) of the macaque monkey. Exp Brain Res 138:141–152. Elston GN, Benavides-Piccione R, DeFelipe J. 2001. The pyramidal cell in cognition: a comparative study in human and monkey. J Neurosci 21:RC163(1–5). Elston GN. 2002. Cortical heterogeneity: implications for visual processing and polysensory integration. J Neurocytol 31:317–335. Elston GN, DeFelipe J. 2002. Spine distribution in neocortical pyramidal cells: a common organizational principle across species. In: Azmitia EC, DeFelipe J, Jones EG, Rakic P, Ribak CE, editors. Progress in brain research. New York: Elsevier. p 109 –133. 617 Elston GN, Rockland K. 2002. The pyramidal cell in sensory-motor cortex of the macaque monkey: phenotypic variation. Cereb Cortex 12:1071–1078. Elston GN. 2003a. The pyramidal neurone in occipital, temporal and prefrontal cortex of the owl monkey (Aotus trivirgatus): regional specialisation in cell structure. Eur J Neurosci 17:1313–1318. Elston GN. 2003b. Comparative studies of pyramidal neurons in visual cortex of monkeys. In: Kaas JH, Collins C, editors. The primate visual system. Boca Raton: CRC Press. p 365–385. Elston GN. 2003c. Cortex, cognition and the cell: new insights into the pyramidal cell and prefrontal function. Cereb Cortex 13:1124 –1138. Elston GN, Garey LJ. 2004. New research ﬁndings on the anatomy of the cerebral cortex with special consideration of anthropological questions. Brisbane: University of Queensland. Elston GN, Benavides-Piccione R, DeFelipe J. 2005a. The pyramidal cell in the limbic cortex of the macaque monkey: a study of cingulate cortex with comparative notes on inferotemporal and primary visual cortex. Cereb Cortex 15:64 –73. Elston GN, Elston A, Casagrande VA, Kaas J. 2005b. Regional specialization in pyramidal cell structure in the visual cortex of the Galago: an intracellular injection study with comparative notes on New World and Old World monkeys. Brain Behav Evol (in press). Euler T, Denk W. 2001. Dendritic processing. Curr Opin Neurobiol 11:415– 422. Feldman ML, Peters A. 1979. A technique for estimating total spine numbers on Golgi-impregnated dendrites. J Comp Neurol 188:527– 542. Greenough W, Volkmar FR, Juraska JM. 1973. Effects of rearing complexity on dendritic branching in frontolateral and temporal cortex in the rat. Exp Neurol 41:371–378. Greenough W, Larson JR, Withers GS. 1985. Effects of unilateral and bilateral training in a reaching task on dendritic branching of neurons in the rat sensory-motor forelimb cortex. Behav Neural Biol 44:301–314. Harris KM. 1999. Structure, development, and plasticity of dendritic spines. Curr Opin Neurobiol 9:343–348. Häusser M, Spruston N, Stuart GJ. 2000. Diversity and dynamics of dendritic signalling. Science 290:739 –744. Hinton VJ, Brown WT, Wisniewski K, Rudelli RD. 1991. Analysis of neocortex in three males with the fragile X syndrome. Am J Med Genet 41:289 –294. Huttenlocher PR. 1979. Synaptic density in human frontal cortex: developmental changes and effects of aging. Brain Res 163:195– 205. Jacobs B, Schall M, Prather M, Kapler L, Driscoll L, Baca S, Jacobs J, Ford K, Wainwright M, Treml M. 2001. Regional dendritic and spine variation in human cerebral cortex: a quantitative study. Cereb Cortex 11:558 –571. Jacobs B, Scheibel AB. 2002. Regional dendritic variation in primate cortical pyramidal cells. In: Schüz A, Miller R, editors. Cortical areas: unity and diversity. Berkshire: Taylor and Francis. p 111– 131. Kaas J. 2003. Early visual areas: V1, V2, V3, DM, DL and MT. In: Kaas JH, Collins C, editors. The primate visual system. Boca Raton: CRC Press. p 139 –159. Kaufmann WE, Moser HW. 2000. Dendritic anomalies in disorders associated with mental retardation. Cereb Cortex 10:981–991. Kintsova AY, Greenough W. 1999. Synaptic plasticity in cortical systems. Curr Opin Neurobiol 9:203–208. Koch C. 1997. Computation and the single neuron. Nature 385:207– 210. Leuba G. 1983. Aging of dendrites in the cerebral cortex of the mouse. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 9:467– 475. Lund JS, Yoshioka T, Levitt JB. 1993. Comparison of intrinsic connectivity in different areas of macaque monkey cerebral cortex. Cereb Cortex 3:148 –162. Magee JC. 2000. Dendritic integration of excitatory synaptic input. Nat Rev 1:181–190. Marin-Padilla M. 1976. Pyramidal cell abnormalities in the motor cortex of a child with Down’s syndrome: a Golgi study. J Comp Neurol 167:63– 81. 618 ELSTON ET AL. Martin RD. 1990. Primate origins and evolution. London: Chapman and Hall. Page TL, Einstein M, Duan H, He Y, Flores T, Rolshud D, Erwin JM, Wearne SL, Morrison JH, Hof PR. 2002. Morphological alterations in neurons forming corticocortical projections in the neocortex of aged Patas monkeys. Neurosci Lett 317:37– 41. Poirazi P, Mel B. 2001. Impact of active dendrites and structural plasticity on the storage capacity of neural tissue. Neuron 29:779 – 796. Preuss TM, Goldman-Rakic PS. 1991. Ipsilateral cortical connections of granular frontal cortex in the strepsirhine primate Galago, with comparative comments on anthropoid primates. J Comp Neurol 310:507–549. Ramon y Cajal S. 1893. Neuvo concepto de la histologia de los centros nerviosos. Rev Cienc Méd Barcelona 18:21– 40. Scheibel ME, Lindsay RD, Tomiyasu U, Scheibel AB. 1975. Progressive dendritic changes in the ageing human cortex. Exp Neurol 47:392– 403. Scheibel ME, Lindsay RD, Tomiyasu U, Scheibel AB. 1976. Progressive dendritic changes in the ageing human limbic system. Exp Neurol 53:420 – 430. Segev I, Burke RE, Hines M. 2001. Compartmental models of complex neurons. In: Koch C, Segev I, editors. Methods in neuronal modeling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p 93–136. Sholl DA. 1953. Dendritic organization in the neurons of the visual and motor cortices of the cat. J Anat 87:387– 406. Stepanyants A, Hof PR, Chklovskii DB. 2002. Geometry and structural plasticity of synaptic connectivity. Neuron 34:275–288. Suetsugu M, Mehraein P. 1980. Spine distribution along the apical dendrites of pyramidal neurons in Down’s syndrome: a quantitative and qualitative Golgi study. Acta Neuropathol 50:207–210. Takashima S, Becker LE, Armstrong DL, Chan F. 1981. Abnormal neuronal development in the visual cortex of the human fetus and infant with Down’s syndrome: a quantitative and qualitative Golgi study. Brain Res 225:1–21. Valverde F. 1967. Apical dendritic spines of the visual cortex and light deprivation in the mouse. Exp Brain Res 3:337–352. Vetter P, Roth A, Häusser M. 2001. Propagation of action potentials in dendrites depends on dendritic morphology. J Neurophysiol 85: 926 –937. Wang X-J. 2001. Synaptic reverberation underlying mnemonic persistent activity. Trends Neurosci 24:455– 463. Wooley CS. 1999. Structural plasticity of dendrites. In: Stuart G, Spruston N, Häusser M, editors. Dendrites. New York: Oxford University Press. p 339 –364. Wu CW-H, Bichot NP, Kaas JH. 2000. Converging evidence from microstimulation, architecture, and connections for multiple motor areas in the frontal and cingulate cortex of prosimian primates. J Comp Neurol 423:140 –177. Wu CW-H, Kaas JH. 2003. Somatosensory cortex of prosimian galagos: physiological recording, cytoarchitecture, and corticocortical connections of anterior parietal cortex and cortex of the lateral sulcus. J Comp Neurol 457:263–292. Yuste R, Tank DW. 1996. Dendritic integration in mammalian neurons, a century after Cajal. Neuron 16:701–706.