A recent study by Sorrells et al. (2018) has stirred a debate whether human being really do have adult neurogenesis in hippocampus or not.

In a following paper- Adult hippocampal neurogenesis: a coming-of-age story, HG Kuhn, T Toda, FH Gage have criticized the original study by stating that

while Sorrells et al. did count $DCX^{+}PSA-NCAM^{+}$ cells as adult-born neurons; they did not count $DCX^{-}PSA-NCAM^{+}$ as the same, claiming that the latter exhibited more mature morphological features based on their criteria. However, the developmental time course of adult-born neurons in the human dentate gyrus has not been clearly characterized, and neurons in higher mammals take at least six months to fully mature (Kohler et al., 2011).

My Question is- are the $DCX^{-}PSA-NCAM^{+}$ neurons really the result of adult neurogenesis, as claimed in the second paper? Or are Sorrells et al. correct in calling only those neurons adult born that respond to both the markers (DCX,PSA-NCAM).

  • $\begingroup$ What answer are you looking for beyond what's in those papers? I.e., why do you think they've overlooked something that is decided in the field rather than there being disagreement? One of them is advocating a more stringent criterion, that's it. $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause
    Dec 12, 2018 at 16:32
  • $\begingroup$ @bryankrause the authors of the two papers are making contradictory claims, and supporting their claims with reason. One of them claims that the markers can give false positive results by identifying glia cells as new born neurons. The others claim otherwise. I need opinion of others on this disagreement, some arguments, facts and perhaps link to some sources, so that this can help me understand the situation more clearly. $\endgroup$
    – Prem
    Dec 12, 2018 at 18:04
  • $\begingroup$ Right, which is the purpose of the commentary by Kuhn et al: they note that Sorrells is being more conservative than previous work in their definitions and that "the developmental time course of adult-born neurons in the human dentate gyrus has not been clearly characterized" - in other words, if Sorrells et al criteria is right, their conclusion is right, if their criteria is wrong, their conclusion is wrong. It's hard to do these studies because there aren't many human brains available to chop up. $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause
    Dec 12, 2018 at 18:11
  • $\begingroup$ Kuhn isn't claiming "otherwise" they are claiming "unclear"; similarly Sorrells isn't claiming "does give false positive" they are claiming "could" - uncertainty is normal on the edges of knowledge, if it wasn't then those wouldn't be the edges. $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause
    Dec 12, 2018 at 18:15


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .