Abstract

Recent studies have revealed striking differences in pyramidal cell structure among cortical regions involved in the processing of different functional modalities. For example, cells involved in visual processing show systematic variation, increasing in morphological complexity with rostral progression from V1 through extrastriate areas. Differences have also been identified between pyramidal cells in somatosensory, motor and prefrontal cortex, but the extent to which the pyramidal cell phenotype may vary between these functionally related cortical regions remains unknown. In the present study we investigated the structure of layer III pyramidal cells in somatosensory and motor areas 3b, 4, 5, 6 and 7b of the macaque monkey. Cells were intracellularly injected in fixed, flat-mounted cortical slices and analysed for morphometric parameters. The size of the basal dendritic arbours, the number of their branches and their spine density were found to vary systematically between areas. Namely, we found a trend for increasing complexity in dendritic arbour structure through areas 3b, 5 and 7b. A similar trend occurred through areas 4 and 6. The differences in arbour structure may determine the number of inputs received by neurons and may thus be an important factor in determining function at the cellular and systems level.

Introduction

Two diametrically opposed views can be found in the literature regarding cortical organization. On the one hand, it is suggested that cortex is homogenous, all areas being composed of a basic repeated circuit (Creutzfeldt, 1977; Szentagothai, 1978; Rockel et al., 1980; Douglas et al., 1989; Hendry and Calkins, 1998). In the alternative view, cortex is considered to be heterogeneous, with distinct regional variations in the structure of its circuitry (Cajal, 1894; Lund et al., 1993; Hof and Morrison, 1995; DeFelipe et al., 1999) and in its development (Huttenlocher and Dabholkar, 1997; Donoghue and Rakic, 1999; Bishop et al., 2000; Fukuchi-Shimogori and Grove, 2001). According to the first view, functional specificity is determined by the source of inputs. The second view states that both intrinsic cortical circuitry, as well as the source of inputs, determines cortical function.

Recent studies have revealed distinct variations in the pyramidal cell phenotype in different cortical areas (Lund et al., 1993; Elston et al., 1996, 1999a, b, 2001; Elston and Rosa, 1997, 1998a, b, 2000; Elston, 2000; Jacobs et al., 2001). These variations are not random, but are systematic; that is, cells become more branched and more spinous when comparing primary sensory with sensory association and executive cortical areas. The extent of these differences is impressive: layer III pyramidal cells in prefrontal cortex of the macaque monkey have been reported to be up to 16 times more spinous than those in V1 (Elston, 2000). In addition, the extent of regional differences in cell structure is species dependent, being greater in human, for example, than in macaque and marmoset monkeys (Elston et al., 2001).

In the present study we determined the morphology of pyramidal cells in macaque somatosensory and motor cortex to extend the database and to provide further information relevant to the underlying trends and mechanisms that result in phenotypic variation. We found systematic differences in the pyramidal cell phenotype between cortical areas 3b, 5 and 7b, as well as between areas 4 and 6. These results extend previous findings in visual cortex and provide further support for the hypothesis that pyramidal cell structure is specialized for particular functional requirements. In addition, these data provide a basis for future comparisons between homologous areas in other species.

Materials and Methods

Methods of perfusion, slice preparation, cell injection, classification, morphological and statistical analysis have been detailed in previous studies (Sholl, 1953; Eayrs and Goodhead, 1959; Buhl and Schlote, 1987; Elston and Rosa, 1997; Elston et al., 1997). Briefly, two adult female macaque monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were used in the present study (4–4.5 kg). The animals were deeply anaesthetized with sodium pentobarbitol and perfused intracardially with physiological saline, followed by a solution of 4% paraformaldehyde in 0.1 mol/l phosphate buffer (pH 7.2). The protocol for these experiments was in accordance with those endorsed by the NIH (publication No. 86-23, revised 1985) and was approved by the RIKEN Animal Ethics Committee.

Tissue was taken from the caudal bank of the central sulcus (Vogt and Vogt’s area 3b), the rostral bank of the central sulcus [Brodmann’s area 4; corresponding to 4c of Preuss et al. (Preuss et al., 1997)], the exposed lateral portion of the precentral gyrus [Brodmann’s area 6; corresponding to premotor area PMv of Strick (Strick, 1985) or F4 of Matelli and colleagues (Matelli et al., 1985, 1991)], the rostral bank of the intra-parietal sulcus [Brodmann’s area 5; corresponding to I–II of Preuss and Goldman-Rakic (Preuss and Goldman-Rakic, 1989)] and the exposed rostral portion of the inferior parietal lobule (Vogt and Vogt’s area 7b) (Fig. 1). Tissue was taken from the right hemisphere of both animals. Since cortical areal maps are still in some flux, we have presented our data according to the anatomical location of the cortical areas as the most neutral and general option. In particular, data are presented with respect to the central sulcus. Tissue sampled in all cortical areas was taken along a transect perpendicular to the central sulcus, to increase the likelihood that only cells which represent similar body parts were studied (Fig. 1).

Blocks were prepared as flattened specimens by ‘unfolding’ the tissue, removing the white matter and postfixing between glass slides. Sections (250 mm, tangential to the cortical surface) were cut with the aid of a vibratome and prelabelled with the fluorescent dye 4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI; Sigma D9542). Under UV excitation (341–343 nm), individual DAPI-labelled somata could be visualized. Neurons were injected by continuous current (up to 100 nA) until the individual dendrites of each cell could be traced to abrupt distal tips and the dendritic spines were easily visible. Neurons were consistently injected at the base of layer III, near the transition with layer IV, and some of their basal dendrites projected into layer IV. 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) and 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 h) followed by a biotin–horseradish peroxidase complex (Amersham RPN1051; 1:200 in 0.1 mol/l phosphate buffer). Labelling was revealed using 3,3′-diaminobenzidine (DAB; Sigma D 8001; 1:200 in 0.1 mol/l phosphate buffer) as the chromogen (Elston et al. 1997). This method allowed reconstruction of cell morphology in fine detail, including the identification of individual dendritic spines (Fig. 2). In addition, we were able to determine which cells were completely filled and exclude those that were only partially filled.

Neurons were drawn with the aid of a camera lucida microscope attachment. The size of the basal dendritic arbours was determined by calculating the area contained within a polygon that joined the outermost distal tips of the dendritic arbour (using features of NIH image software; NIH Research Services, Bethesda, MD) (Elston and Rosa, 1997). Branching patterns were determined by Sholl analyses (Sholl, 1953), using a 25 mm incremental increase in the radii of successive concentric circles. Spines were drawn at high power (×100 oil immersion objective). All spine types, including sessile and pedunculate (Jones and Powell, 1969), were included in the spine counts, although no distinction was made between them. Correction factors used in other studies when quantifying spines (Feldman and Peters, 1979; Larkman, 1991) were not used in the present study, as the DAB reaction product allows the visualization of spines that issue from the underside of dendrites [e.g. Figs 1 and 3 of Elston et al. (Elston et al., 1999b)]. All spine data were obtained from a single case (R27) with the largest number of cells. Cell bodies were drawn with the aid of a Zeiss ×100 oil-immersion lens and their areas determined by tracing the outermost perimeter, whilst changing focal plane and using standard features of NIH Image. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

Results

One hundred and sixty-one layer III cells in cortical areas 3b, 4, 5, 6 and 7b were included for analysis. Criteria for inclusion were that cells had an unambiguous apical dendrite characteristic of pyramidal neurons (DeFelipe and Fariñas, 1992), had their complete basal dendritic arbours contained within the section and were well filled. Although there was some interindividual variation in morphological features of cells for any given area, these differences were small by comparison to interareal differences seen in each case. The morphological parameters of cells in all cortical areas were both qualitatively and quantitatively similar in both cases (R25, n = 50 cells; R27, n = 114 cells). Moreover, trends in interareal variation were the same in both cases. As it is now well established that pyramidal cell structure varies systematically in different cortical areas and that these differences are reproducible in different individuals — marmoset monkeys (Elston et al., 1999b), macaque monkeys (Lund et al., 1993), humans (Jacobs et al., 2001) — we pooled data between cases and presented them according to cortical area.

Basal Dendritic Field Areas

Qualitative observation of pyramidal cells in the different cortical areas revealed differences in the appearance of their basal dendritic arbours related to arbour size, complexity of branching structure and spine density. To quantify differences in the size of the basal dendritic arbours, we determined their areas by drawing a polygon around the outermost distal tips of the dendrites and calculating the area contained within. These analyses confirmed that basal dendritic arbours of cells in area 3b were smaller (mean ± SEM, 49.15 × 103 ± 1.63 × 103 μm2) than those in area 5 (80.69 × 103 ± 1.71 × 103 μm2), which were smaller than those in area 7 (96.18 × 103 ± 2.65 × 103 μm2). In addition, cells in area 4 (74.39 × 103 ± 2.45 × 103 μm2) had smaller arbours than those in area 6 (90.33 × 103 ± 3.73 × 103 μm2) (Fig. 3A). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed significant differences in the areas of the basal dendritic arbours of pyramidal cells in the different cortical areas [F(4) = 47.2, P < 0.001]. Post hoc Scheffé tests revealed that 7 of 10 interareal comparisons were significantly different (P < 0.05; Fig. 4A).

Branching Patterns of the Basal Dendritic Arbours

Branching patterns of the basal dendritic arbours of pyramidal neurons are shown in Figure 3B, which plots the results of Sholl analysis (based on concentric circles of increasing radii: 25 μm intervals). As can be seen from the figure, the branching pattern of the basal dendritic arbours of pyramidal neurons was measurably different in all cortical areas studied. The peak branching complexity (the maximum number of dendritic intersections per circle) for cells in area 3b (mean ± SEM, 24.5 ± 0.8) was less than that of cells in area 5 (32.5 ± 0.9), which was, in turn, less than that in area 7b (38.1 ± 1.2). Cells in area 4 had a smaller peak branching complexity (29.8 ± 0.9) than those in area 6 (35.2 ± 1.3). Comparison of areas under the curves revealed that cells in area 7 had ∼20% more branches than those in area 5 and 120% more branches that those in 3b. In addition, cells in area 6 had ∼25% more branches than those in area 4. Despite differences in the number of branches in the basal dendritic arbours, the peak dendritic complexity of cells in all cortical areas was located approximately one-third of the distance from the cell body to the distal tips of the dendrites. A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant differences (P < 0.001) in the branching patterns of pyramidal cells between the different areas [intercept, F(1) = 3056; cortical area, F(4) = 33.24].

Spine Densities of the Basal Dendrites

Visual observation revealed differences in the density of spines on the basal dendrites of pyramidal neurons in the different cortical areas. In order to quantify the differences, spines were sampled, per 10 mm dendritic segment, from the cell body to the distal tips of the dendrites. More than 23 000 individual spines were tallied. The results of these analyses are plotted in Fig. 3C, which shows the mean and standard deviation of spine density for 20 randomly selected, horizontally projecting basal dendrites of different cells in each cortical area. In all cases, spine density was zero in the proximal 10 μm of the basal dendrites, rose to a peak density at approximately one-third the distance between the soma and the distal tips of the dendrites, and decreased with further progression toward the distal tips. A two-factor repeated-measures ANOVA (cortical area × distance from soma × spine density), over the entire dendritic length, revealed a significant difference (P < 0.001) in the distribution of spines between cells in all cortical areas studied [intercept, F(1) = 3959; cortical area, F(4) = 45.7]. Post hoc Scheffé tests revealed that 7 of 10 between-area comparisons of spine density were significantly different (P < 0.05; Fig. 4C).

The total number of dendritic spines in the basal dendritic arbour of the ‘average’ pyramidal neuron in each area was calculated by combining data from the Sholl analyses with that of spine densities (Elston, 2001). The ‘average’ neuron in area 3b had 2987 spines in its basal dendritic arbour. Similar calculations revealed that the average pyramidal cell in area 5 had 4689 spines in its basal dendritic arbour, compared with 6841 spines for neurons in area 7b. The ‘average’ cell in area 4 contained 4568 spines, while that in area 6 had 8238 spines.

Somal Areas

Somata were drawn, in the plane tangential to the cortical layers, and plotted in Figure 3D. A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in cell body size between neurons in the different cortical areas [F(4) = 25.89, P < 0.001]. Somata of cells in layer III of area 3b (mean ± SEM, 187.7 ± 5.03 μm2) were smaller than those in area 5 (247.28 ± 6.70 mm2), which were smaller than those in area 7 (292.05 ± 8.23 mm2). Somata of cells in layer III of area 4 (286.46 ± 9.30 mm2) were larger than those in area 6 (268.24 ± 8.34 mm2). Post hoc Scheffé tests revealed that 6 of 10 between-area comparisons of soma size were significantly different (P < 0.05; Fig. 4D).

As can be seen from Figure 4, comparison of the degree of variation of the different anatomical variables tested here revealed that they are not necessarily correlated, but may vary independently of each other. In particular, cell body size does not necessarily reflect the size or branching patterns of the basal dendritic arbour, or the distribution of spines within the arbour (e.g. area 6).

Discussion

Layer III pyramidal neurons were intracellularly injected in tangential slices taken from macaque sensorimotor cortex. We found two trends of increasing morphological complexity with progression from the central sulcus to adjacent cortical areas. First, the complexity of dendritic arbours increased with caudal progression from the posterior wall of the central sulcus (area 3b) to the rostral bank of the intraparietal sulcus (area 5) and the exposed rostral portion of the inferior parietal lobule (area 7b). Second, complexity in arbour structure increased with rostral progression from the anterior wall of the central sulcus (area 4) to the exposed lateral portion of the precentral gyrus (area 6). These data confirm previous reports of regional differences in pyramidal cell morphology in sensorimotor cortex (Lund et al., 1993; Jacobs et al., 2001) and extend the finding to show systematic variation between individual areas and functionally related regions.

Cortical Specialization and the Pyramidal Cell

The present data provide further evidence for principled trends underlying pyramidal cell structure and cortical function. While the effects of age, sex, hemisphere and rearing conditions (Scheibel et al., 1975; Nakamura et al., 1985; Jacobs et al., 1993, 1997; Anderson and Rutledge, 1996) have to be taken into account when comparing the present data with those from other studies, our results suggest that cells in polymodal sensory and motor association cortex of the macaque are considerably more spinous and more branched than their counterparts in primary areas. Furthermore, cells in polymodal sensory and motor association cortex are less spinous than their counterparts in macaque prefrontal cortex. Thus, data from macaque monkeys parallel trends reported in humans (Elston et al., 2001; Jacobs et al., 2001). The extent of the differences in macaque may not, however, be as great as those reported in man (Elston et al., 2001) and further studies are required in other species to determine whether or not a similar pattern is seen in brains that have undergone different types of specialization.

Functional Implications of Phenotypic Variation of the Pyramidal Cell

Cellular Level

The present results suggest that arbours of pyramidal cells in different sensorimotor areas receive different numbers of excitatory inputs. This follows from the fact that each dendritic spine receives at least one asymmetrical (Colonnier, 1968; Jones, 1968) glutamatergic (DeFelipe et al., 1988; Kharazia et al., 1996) synapse and, therefore, the number of putative excitatory inputs can be estimated from spine number. Furthermore, differences in dendritic length and spine number are likely to influence the number of inhibitory inputs received by these cells [for a discussion, see Elston et al. (Elston et al., 1999c)], resulting in varying degrees of pre-integration inhibition in the arbours of cells in different cortical areas (Spratling and Johnson, 2001). In addition, differences in the branching patterns have been reported to influence the degree to which processing may be compartmentalized within the arbours (Koch et al., 1982, 1983) and the functional capacity of neurons (Poirazi and Mel, 2001).

Systems Levels

Putative differences in the numbers of excitatory inputs received by supragranular pyramidal cells in the different cortical areas may determine convergence and divergence to individual cells, thus influencing their receptive field properties. For example, the receptive field size of cells in visual cortex is correlated with the size of their basal dendritic arbours (Colonnier, 1964; Gilbert and Wiesel, 1979; Elston and Rosa, 1998a,b; Elston et al., 1999b). In addition, the sampling profiles of neurons may be influenced by the size of their arbours (Lund et al., 1993; Malach, 1994). For example, the size of basal dendritic arbours of supragranular pyramidal cells in several visual areas is correlated with the size of intrinsic horizontally projecting axon patches (Lund et al., 1993; Elston and Rosa, 1998a,b). As previously suggested (Malach, 1994), such a correlation would result in a maximal sampling diversity. Further experiments are required to determine whether or not a similar correlation exists in sensori-motor cortex, which is also characterized by an intrinsic horizontal latticework of connections, or patches (Juliano et al., 1990; Huntley and Jones, 1991; Lund et al., 1993).

Two other examples come to mind regarding how cell structure might influence cortical function. In prefrontal cells, the long post-stimulus spiking activity, which is thought to underpin their role in memory, rule learning and reasoning (Fuster and Alexander, 1971; Kubota and Niki, 1971; Fuster, 1973; Wallis et al., 2001), may result from a high degree of interconnectedness and the integration of large numbers of inputs (Soloway et al., 2002). In addition, the work of Murayama and colleagues (Murayama et al., 1997) can be interpreted as evidence that interareal differences in intrinsic connectivity influence functional architecture. Namely, 40–100 Hz stimulation of layers 2/3 results in long-term potentiation (LTP) in temporal lobe cortex, but long-term depression (LTD) in V1. These different response characteristics might, in part, result from differences in the input configuration and interactions of the intrinsic excitatory connections to pyramidal cells (McGuire et al., 1991; Tanigawa et al., 1998).

Processing Pathways

Systematic differences in the phenotype of supragranular pyramidal neurons correlate, to an extent, with the proposed organization of cortical areas into hierarchies (Mishkin, 1979; Maunsell and van Essen, 1983; Pons et al., 1987, 1992; Felleman and van Essen, 1991; Gross et al., 1993; Graziano and Gross, 1997). The present results in somatosensory cortex show that the size of cells, their branching complexity and the total number of spines within their basal dendritic arbour increase through areas 3b, 5 and 7b, which reportedly form successive hierarchical levels in somatosensory processing (Friedman, 1983; Friedman et al., 1986; Felleman and van Essen, 1991), but see Neal et al. (Neal et al., 1987) and Andersen et al. (Andersen et al., 1990). However, our results in motor areas 4 and 6 conform less well to this interpretation. That is, motor effector cells in area 4, which is generally considered to be the end of a cortical motor decision–execution pathway, are smaller and less branched than those in area 6 (Jacobs et al., 2001), which is usually placed before area 4 in this pathway (Jones, 1986; Geyer et al., 2000). Furthermore, comparison of infragranular pyramidal cells reveals a systematic decrease in the size of, number of branches in and number of spines in their basal dendritic arbours through areas STP, TE and TEO (Elston and Rosa, 2000). Moreover, cells in prefrontal cortex, which modulate sensory processing (Vidyasagar, 1996; Buchel and Friston, 1997; Ito and Gilbert, 1999; Mehta et al., 2000), are larger, more branched and considerably more spinous than their target cells (Elston, 2000; Jacobs et al., 2001; Soloway et al., 2002).

It is also clear that much remains to be determined about the anatomical and functional relationships between sensori-motor areas, particularly in terms of the functional weighting of connections for specific tasks (Jones, 1986; Paulesu et al., 1997). The results of recent imaging studies, for example, suggest that individual areas do not necessarily function in a successive temporal (or hierarchical) sequence, but, rather, many different cortical areas may be simultaneously involved in any given task (Kaas, 1990; Calvert, 2001). Thus, differences in pyramidal cell phenotype may be influenced by factors such as regional variation in gene expression during development (Rakic, 1988; Huttenlocher and Dabholkar, 1997; Donoghue and Rakic, 1999; Bishop et al., 2000; Fukuchi-Shimogori and Grove, 2001; Tochitani et al., 2001) and specialization during evolution (Cajal, 1894; Elston et al., 2001). The implications of interareal variation in pyramidal cell structure reported here will require objective analyses of cell structure (Elston and Jelinek, 2001; Jelinek and Elston, 2001) and quantification of patterns of connectivity between areas (Young, 1993; Jouve et al., 1998) across a number of species.

Cell Soma Size and Dendritic Arbour Structure: is there a Correlation?

The present results provide further evidence that cell soma size is not necessarily a reliable indicator of dendritic arbour structure. For example, there was only 50% concordance between the pair-wise statistical comparisons between cortical areas for branching pattern and somal size (Fig. 4). More specifically, we found no significant difference in the soma size of neurons between areas 6 and 5, 6 and 7, 4 and 6 or 4 and 7; but cells in area 4 had significantly smaller dendritic arbours than those in areas 6 and 7, and cells in area 7 had significantly more dendritic branches than those in areas 4 and 6 (Fig. 4). In addition, even when we found no significant difference in the size of the somata of cells in different cortical areas, we found marked differences in the number of spines contained within their basal arbours. For example, cells in area 6 contain at least 75% more spines than those in areas 4 and 5, but their somata were not significantly different in size (Elston et al., 1999b). Reverse comparisons also revealed a lack of consistency between cell body size and arbour structure. For example, soma size was significantly different between cells in areas 4 and 5, but there was no significant difference in their dendritic arbour size. Various groups have now reported a lack of correlation between cell body size of cortical neurons and the structure of their arbours — rat somatosensory cortex (Larkman, 1991), cat visual cortex (Matsubara et al., 1996), monkey visual cortex (Elston et al., 1999b) — suggesting widespread variance between these parameters.

Conclusions

By injecting neurons in different cortical areas we have demonstrated systematic variation in the pyramidal cell structure in sensorimotor cortex of the macaque monkey. Dendritic arbour size, number of branch points, spine density and soma size may vary independently of each other. As supragranular pyramidal cells form extensive intrinsic and interareal cortical projections, regional variation of the pyramidal cell phenotype is likely to have profound implications for areal and systems function. These findings are in direct contrast with the belief that all cortical areas are built of the same neural components linked in similar ways. Instead, the present results support the thesis that the pyramidal cell and the circuits it forms are modified in parallel with particular functional requirements. Further studies are required to determine the extent of regional variation of pyramidal cell apical dendrites, as well as interneuronal variation.

Figure 1.

(A) Schematic showing the regions of cortex from which tissue was sampled (dashed rectangle in the inset of the brain). Tissue was taken from the caudal bank of the central sulcus (CS) (field 3b of the primary somatosensory area SI), the rostral bank of the CS (area 4), the exposed lateral portion of the precentral gyrus (area 6), the rostral bank of the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) (area 5) and the exposed rostral portion of the supramarginal gyrus (area 7b). (B) Schematic [modified from Kaas and Pons (Kaas and Pons, 1988)] showing the body part representations in somatosensory cortical areas near the CS, the IPS and the postcentral sulcus (PCS). In both cases, tissue was sampled at right angles to the central sulcus (dashed rectangle) in order to optimize the possibility that cells were from the representation of the same body part, most likely the hand.

Figure 1.

(A) Schematic showing the regions of cortex from which tissue was sampled (dashed rectangle in the inset of the brain). Tissue was taken from the caudal bank of the central sulcus (CS) (field 3b of the primary somatosensory area SI), the rostral bank of the CS (area 4), the exposed lateral portion of the precentral gyrus (area 6), the rostral bank of the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) (area 5) and the exposed rostral portion of the supramarginal gyrus (area 7b). (B) Schematic [modified from Kaas and Pons (Kaas and Pons, 1988)] showing the body part representations in somatosensory cortical areas near the CS, the IPS and the postcentral sulcus (PCS). In both cases, tissue was sampled at right angles to the central sulcus (dashed rectangle) in order to optimize the possibility that cells were from the representation of the same body part, most likely the hand.

Figure 2.

Photomicrographs of layer III pyramidal cells injected with Lucifer yellow and processed for a DAB reaction product. (AC) Low-power micrographs (×10 lens) illustrating the gross structure of individually injected cells, the high contrast of the DAB reaction product and the low background. (D) Higher power photomicrograph (×40 lens) illustrating the soma, proximal dendrites and individual dendritic spines (arrows). Spines were reconstructed with a ×100 lens. Scale bar = 42 μm in (AC) and 20 μm in (D).

Figure 2.

Photomicrographs of layer III pyramidal cells injected with Lucifer yellow and processed for a DAB reaction product. (AC) Low-power micrographs (×10 lens) illustrating the gross structure of individually injected cells, the high contrast of the DAB reaction product and the low background. (D) Higher power photomicrograph (×40 lens) illustrating the soma, proximal dendrites and individual dendritic spines (arrows). Spines were reconstructed with a ×100 lens. Scale bar = 42 μm in (AC) and 20 μm in (D).

Figure 3.

(A) Frequency histograms of the size of the basal dendritic arbours of layer III pyramidal neurons in areas 3b, 4, 5, 6 and 7b. (B) Graphs of the results of Sholl analysis of the basal dendritic trees of pyramidal neurons in sensorimotor areas. (C) Plots of the proportion of dendritic spines per 10 μm segment of dendrite, as a function of distance, in the basal dendritic arbours of layer III pyramidal neurons. (D) Frequency histograms of somal areas of pyramidal neurons in areas 3b, 4, 5, 6 and 7b. Error bars = standard errors.

Figure 3.

(A) Frequency histograms of the size of the basal dendritic arbours of layer III pyramidal neurons in areas 3b, 4, 5, 6 and 7b. (B) Graphs of the results of Sholl analysis of the basal dendritic trees of pyramidal neurons in sensorimotor areas. (C) Plots of the proportion of dendritic spines per 10 μm segment of dendrite, as a function of distance, in the basal dendritic arbours of layer III pyramidal neurons. (D) Frequency histograms of somal areas of pyramidal neurons in areas 3b, 4, 5, 6 and 7b. Error bars = standard errors.

Figure 4.

Schematic showing the results of pair-wise post hoc statistical comparisons of various aspects of cell structure between different cortical areas including (A) basal dendritic arbour size, (B) branching pattern, (C) spine density and (D) somal size. Black line signifies a statistically significant difference between the two cortical areas. Grey signifies no significant difference for the pair-wise comparison. Comparison of the results of interareal statistical comparisons for somal size (D) with those for dendritic area (A), branching patterns (B) and spine density (C), reveals that the regional differences in the two parameters are not necessarily correlated.

Figure 4.

Schematic showing the results of pair-wise post hoc statistical comparisons of various aspects of cell structure between different cortical areas including (A) basal dendritic arbour size, (B) branching pattern, (C) spine density and (D) somal size. Black line signifies a statistically significant difference between the two cortical areas. Grey signifies no significant difference for the pair-wise comparison. Comparison of the results of interareal statistical comparisons for somal size (D) with those for dendritic area (A), branching patterns (B) and spine density (C), reveals that the regional differences in the two parameters are not necessarily correlated.

Thanks to Alberto Muñoz for many helpful discussions, Javier DeFelipe for providing the antibody to Lucifer yellow and Ruth Benavides-Piccione, Lidia Alonso, Inma Ballesteros and Azucena Oritz for technical help. G.N.E. was supported by a C.J. Martin Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; collaborative work was supported by research funds from the RIKEN Brain Science Institute.

References

Andersen RA, Asanuma C, Essick G, Siegel RM (
1990
) Corticocortical connections of anatomically and physiologically defined subdivisions within the inferior parietal lobule.
J Comp Neurol
 
296
:
65
–113.
Anderson B, Rutledge V (
1996
) Age and hemisphere effects on dendrite structure.
Brain
 
119
:
1983
–1990.
Bishop K, Goudreau G, O’Leary DDM (
2000
) Emx2 and Pax6 regulate identity in the mammalian neocortex.
Science
 
288
:
344
–349.
Buchel C, Friston KJ, (
1997
) Modulation of connectivity in visual pathways by attention: cortical interactions evaluated with structural equation modelling and fMRI.
Cereb Cortex
 
7
:
768
–778.
Buhl EH, Schlote W (
1987
) Intracellular Lucifer yellow staining and electronmicroscopy of neurons in slices of fixed epitumourous human cortical tissue.
Acta Neuropathol
 
75
:
140
–146.
Cajal SR (
1894
) Estructura intima de los centros nerviosos.
Rev Ciencias Med
 
20
:
145
–160.
Calvert GA (
2001
) Crossmodal processing in the human brain: insights from functional neuroimaging studies.
Cereb Cortex
 
11
:
1110
–1123.
Colonnier ML (
1964
) The tangential organization of the cortex.
J Anat
 
98
:
327
–344.
Colonnier M (
1968
) Synaptic patterns on different cell types in the different laminae of the cat visual cortex.
Brain Res
 
9
:
268
–287.
Creutzfeldt OD (
1977
) Generality of the functional structure of the neocortex.
Naturwissenschaften
 
64
:
507
–517.
DeFelipe J, Fariñas I (
1992
) The pyramidal neuron of the cerebral cortex: morphological and chemical characteristics of the synaptic inputs.
Prog Neurobiol
 
39
:
563
–607.
DeFelipe J, Conti F, Van Eyck SL, Manzoni T (
1988
) Demonstration of glutamate-positive axon terminals forming asymmetric synapses in cat neocortex.
Brain Res
 
455
:
162
–165.
DeFelipe J, del Río MR, González-Albo MC, Elston GN (
1999
) Distribution and patterns of connectivity of interneurons containing calbindin, calretinin and parvalbumin in visual areas of the occipital and temporal lobes of the macaque monkey.
J Comp Neurol
 
412
:
515
–526.
Donoghue MJ, Rakic P (
1999
) Molecular evidence for the early specification of presumptive domains in the embryonic primate cerebral cortex.
J Neurosci
 
19
:
5967
–5979.
Douglas RJ, Martin KAC, Whitteridge D (
1989
) A canonical microcircuit for neocortex.
Neural Comp
 
1
:
480
–488.
Eayrs JT, Goodhead B (
1959
) Postnatal development of the cerebral cortex in the rat.
J Anat
 
93
:
385
–402.
Elston GN (2000) Pyramidal cells of the frontal lobe: all the more spinous to think with.
J Neurosci
 
20
:
RC95
(1–4).
Elston GN (
2001
) Interlaminar differences in the pyramidal cell pheno-type in cortical areas 7m and STP (the superior temporal polysensory area) of the macaque monkey.
Exp Brain Res
 
138
:
141
–152.
Elston GN, Jelinek HF (
2001
) Dendritic branching patterns of pyramidal cells in the visual cortex of the New World marmoset monkey, with comparative notes on the Old World macaque monkey.
Fractals
 
9
:
297
–303.
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 neurons in the occipitotemporal pathway of the macaque monkey visual cortex.
Cereb Cortex
 
8
:
278
–294.
Elston GN, Rosa MGP (
1998
) Complex dendritic fields of pyramidal cells in the frontal eye field of the macaque monkey: comparison with parietal areas 7a and LIP.
Neuroreport
 
9
:
127
–131.
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 G, Rosa MGP, Calford MB (
1996
) Comparison of dendritic fields of layer III pyramidal neurons in striate and extrastriate visual areas of the marmoset: a Lucifer Yellow intracellular injection study.
Cereb Cortex
 
6
:
807
–813.
Elston GN, Pow DV, Calford MB (
1997
) Neuronal composition and morphology in layer IV of two vibrissal barrel subfields of rat cortex.
Cereb Cortex
 
7
:
422
–431.
Elston GN, Tweedale R, Rosa MGP (
1999
) 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 (
1999
) 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, DeFelipe J, Arellano JI, González-Albo MC, Rosa MGP (
1999
) Variation in the spatial relationship between parvalbumin immuno-reactive interneurones and pyramidal neurones in rat somatosensory cortex.
Neuroreport
 
10
:
2975
–2979.
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).
Feldman ML, Peters A (
1979
) A technique for estimating total spine numbers on Golgi-impregnated dendrites.
J Comp Neurol
 
188
:
527
–542.
Felleman DJ, Van Essen DC (
1991
) Distributed hierarchical processing in primate cerebral cortex.
Cereb Cortex
 
1
:
1
–47.
Friedman DP (
1983
) Laminar patterns of termination of corticocortical afferents in the somatosensory system.
Brain Res
 
273
:
147
–151.
Friedman DP, Murray EA, O’Neill JB, Mishkin M (
1986
) Cortical connections of the somatosensory fields of the lateral sulcus of macaques: evidence for a corticolimbic pathway for touch.
J Comp Neurol
 
252
:
323
–347.
Fukuchi-Shimogori T, Grove EA (
2001
) Neocortex patterning by secreted signaling molecule FGF8.
Science
 
294
:
1071
–1074.
Fuster JM (
1973
) Unit activity in prefrontal cortex during delayed-response performance: neuronal correlates of transient memory.
J Neurophysiol
 
36
:
61
–78.
Fuster JM, Alexander GE (
1971
) Neuron activity related to short-term memory.
Science
 
173
:
652
–654.
Geyer S, Matelli M, Luppino G, Zilles K (
2000
) Functional neuroanatomy of the primate isocortical motor system.
Anat Embryol
 
202
:
443
–474.
Gilbert CD, Wiesel TN (
1979
) Morphology and intracortical projections of functionally characterized neurones in the cat visual cortex.
Nature
 
280
:
120
–125.
Gross CG, Rodman HR, Gochin PM, Colombo MW (1993) Inferior temporal cortex as a pattern recognition device. In: Computational learning and recognition: Proceedings of the 3rd NEC Research Symposium (Baum E, ed.), pp. 44–73. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Graziano MSA, Gross CG (1997) Vision, movement, and the monkey brain. In: The association cortex, structure and function (Sakata H, Mikami A, Fuster J, eds), pp. 219–232. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.
Hendry SHC, Calkins DJ (
1998
) Neuronal chemistry and functional organization in the primate visual system.
Trends Neurosci
 
21
:
344
–349.
Hof PR, Morrison JH (
1995
) Neurofilament protein defines regional patterns of cortical organization in the macaque monkey visual system: a quantitative immunohistochemical analysis.
J Comp Neurol
 
352
:
161
–186.
Huntley GW, Jones EG (
1991
) Relationship of intrinsic connections to forelimb movement representations in monkey motor cortex: a correlative anatomic and physiological study.
J Neurophysiol
 
66
:
390
–413.
Huttenlocher PR, Dabholkar AS (
1997
) Regional differences in synaptogenesis in human cerebral cortex.
J Comp Neurol
 
387
:
167
–178.
Ito M, Gilbert CD, (
1999
) Attention modulates contextual influences in the primary visual cortex of alert monkeys.
Neuron
 
22
:
593
–604.
Jacobs B, Schall M, Schiebel AB (
1993
) A quantitative analyses of Wernicke’s area in humans. II. Gender, hemispheric and environmental factors.
J Comp Neurol
 
327
:
97
–111.
Jacobs B, Larsen-Driscoll L, Schall M (
1997
) Lifespan dendritic and spine changes in areas 10 and 18 of human cortex: a quantitative Golgi study.
J Comp Neurol
 
386
:
661
–680.
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.
Jelinek HF, Elston GN (
2001
) Pyramidal neurones in macaque visual cortex: interareal phenotypic variation of dendritic branching patterns.
Fractals
 
9
:
287
–296.
Jones EG (
1968
) An electron microscopic study of the terminations of afferent fiber systems onto the somatic sensory cortex of the cat.
J Anat
 
103
:
595
–597.
Jones EG (1986) Connectivity of the primate sensory-motor cortex. In: Cerebral cortex vol. 5, sensory motor areas and aspects of cortical connectivity (Peters A, Jones EG, eds), pp. 113–182. New York: Plenum.
Jones EG, Powell TPS (
1969
) Morphological variations in the dendritic spines of the neocortex.
J Cell Sci
 
5
:
509
–529.
Jouve B, Rosenstiehl P, Imbert M. (
1998
) A mathematical approach to the connectivity between the cortical visual areas of the macaque monkey.
Cereb Cortex
 
8
:
28
–39.
Juliano SL, Friedman DP, Eslin DE (
1990
) Corticocortical connections predict patches of stimulus-evoked metabolic activity in monkey somatosensory cortex.
J Comp Neurol
 
298
:
23
–39.
Kaas JH (1990) The somatosensory system. In: The human nervous system (Paxinos G, ed.), pp. 813–844. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kaas JH, Pons TP (1988) The somatosensory system of primates. In: Comparative primate biology (Steklis HP, ed.), pp. 421–468. New York: Alan R. Liss.
Kharazia VN, Phend KD, Rustioni A, Weinberg RJ (
1996
) EM colocalization of AMPA and NMDA receptor subunits at synapses in rat cerebral cortex.
Neurosci Lett
 
210
:
37
–40.
Koch C, Poggio T, Torre V (
1982
) Retinal ganglion cells: a functional interpretation of dendritic morphology.
Phil Trans R Soc Lond B
 
298
:
227
–264.
Koch C, Poggio T, Torre V (
1983
) Nonlinear interactions in a dendritic tree: localization, timing and role in information processing.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
 
80
:
2799
–2802.
Kubota K, Niki H (
1971
) Prefrontal cortical unit activity and delayed alternation performance in monkeys.
J Neurophysiol
 
34
:
337
–347.
Larkman AU (
1991
) Dendritic morphology of pyramidal neurones in the visual cortex of the rat: III. Spine distributions.
J Comp Neurol
 
306
:
332
–343.
Lund JS, Yoshioka T, Levitt JB (
1993
) Comparison of intrinsic connectivity in different areas of macaque monkey cerebral cortex.
Cereb Cortex
 
3
:
148
–162.
McGuire BA, Gilbert CD, Rivlin PK, Wiesel TN (
1991
) Targets of horizontal connections in macaque primary visual cortex.
J Comp Neurol
 
305
:
370
–392.
Malach R (
1994
) Cortical columns as devices for maximizing neuronal diversity.
Trends Neurosci
 
17
:
101
–104.
Matelli M, Luppino G, Rizzolatti G (
1985
) Patterns of cytochrome oxidase activity in the frontal agranular cortex of the macaque monkey.
Behav Brain Res
 
18
:
125
–136.
Matelli M, Luppino G, Rizzolatti G (
1991
) Architecture of superior and mesial area 6 and the adjacent cingulate cortex in the macaque monkey.
J Comp Neurol
 
311
:
445
–462.
Matsubara JA, Chase R, Thejomayen M (
1996
) Comparative morphology of three types of projection-identified pyramidal neurons in the superficial layers of cat visual cortex.
J Comp Neurol
 
366
:
93
–108.
Maunsell JHR, Van Essen DC (
1983
) The connections of the middle temporal visual area (MT) and their relationship to a cortical hierarchy in the macaque monkey.
J Neurosci
 
3
:
2563
–2586.
Mehta AD, Ulbert I, Schroeder CE, (
2000
) Intermodal selective attention in monkeys. I: distribution and timing of effects across visual areas.
Cereb Cortex
 
10
:
343
–358.
Mishkin M (
1979
) Analagous neural models for tactual and visual learning.
Neuropsychologia
 
17
:
139
–149.
Murayama Y, Fujita I, Kato M (
1997
) Contrasting forms of synaptic plasticity in monkey inferotemporal and primary visual cortices.
Neuroreport
 
8
:
1503
–1508.
Nakamura S, Akiguchi I, Kameyama M, Mizuno N (
1985
) Age-related changes of pyramidal cell basal dendrites in layers III and V of human motor cortex: a quantitative Golgi study.
Acta Neuropathol
 
65
:
281
–284.
Neal JW, Pearson RCA, Powell TPS (
1987
) The corticocortical connections of area 7b, PF in the parietal lobe of the monkey.
Brain Res
 
419
:
341
–346.
Paulesu E, Frackowiak RSJ, Bottini G (1997) Maps of somatosensory systems. In: Human brain function (Frackowiak RSJ, Friston KJ, Frith CD, Dolan RJ, Mazziotta JC, eds), pp. 183–242. London: Academic Press.
Poirazi P, Mel B (
2001
) Impact of active dendrites and structural plasticity on the storage capacity of neural tissue.
Neuron
 
29
:
779
–796.
Pons TP, Garraghty PE, Friedman DP, Mishkin M (
1987
) Physiological evidence for serial processing in somatosensory cortex.
Science
 
237
:
417
–420.
Pons TP, Garraghty PE, Mishkin M (
1992
) Serial and parallel processing of tactual information in somatosensory cortex of rhesus monkeys.
J Neurophysiol
 
68
:
518
–527.
Preuss TM, Goldman-Rakic PS (
1989
) Connections of the ventral granular frontal cortex of macaques with perisylvian premotor and somato-sensory areas: anatomical evidence for somatic representation in primate frontal association cortex.
J Comp Neurol
 
282
:
293
–316.
Preuss TM, Stepniewska I, Jain N, Kaas JH (
1997
) Multiple divisions of macaque precentral motor cortex identified with neurofilament antibody SMI-32.
Brain Res
 
767
:
148
–153.
Rakic P (
1988
) Specification of cerebral cortical areas.
Science
 
241
:
170
–176.
Rockel AJ, Hiorns RW, Powell TPS (
1980
) The basic uniformity in structure of the neocortex.
Brain
 
103
:
221
–244.
Scheibel ME, Lindsay RD, Tomiyasu U, Scheibel AB (
1975
) Progressive dendritic changes in the ageing human cortex.
Exp Neurol
 
47
:
392
–403.
Sholl DA (
1953
) Dendritic organization in the neurons of the visual and motor cortices of the cat.
J Anat
 
87
:
387
–406.
Soloway AS, Pucak ML, Melchitzky DS, Lewis DA (
2002
) Dendritic morphology of callosal and ipsilateral projection neurons in monkey prefrontal cortex.
Neuroscience
 
109
:
461
–471.
Spratling MW, Johnson MH (
2001
) Dendritic inhibition enhances neural coding properties.
Cereb Cortex
 
11
:
1144
–1149.
Strick PL (
1985
) How do the basal ganglia and cerebellum gain access to the cortical motor areas?
Behav Brain Res
 
18
:
107
–124.
Szentagothai J (
1978
) The neuron network of the cerebral cortex: a functional interpretation.
Proc R Soc Lond
 
201
:
219
–248.
Tanigawa H, Fujita I, Kato M, Ojima H (
1998
) Distribution, morphology, and γ-aminobutyric acid immunoreactivity of horizontally projecting neurons in the macaque inferior temporal cortex.
J Comp Neurol
 
401
:
129
–143.
Tochitani S, Liang F, Watakabe A, Hashikawa T, Yamamori T (
2001
) The occ1 gene is preferentially expressed in the primary visual cortex in an activity-dependent manner: a pattern of gene expression related to the cytoarchitectonic area in adult macaque neocortex.
Eur J Neurosci
 
13
:
297
–307.
Vidyasagar TR (
1996
) Basic information processing and higher cognition: does the mammalian cerebral cortex deal with them at different hierarchical levels?
Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol
 
23
:
908
–912.
Wallis JD, Andersen KC, Miller EK (
2001
) Single neurons in prefrontal cortex encode abstract rules.
Nature
 
411
:
953
–956.
Young MP (
1993
) The organization of neural systems in the primate cerebral cortex.
Proc R Soc Lond B
 
252
:
113
–118.