Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Science. 2016 Sep 9;353(6304):1108. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf6102.

Response to Comment on "Principles of connectivity among morphologically defined cell types in adult neocortex".

Author information

1
Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. astolias@bcm.edu xiaolonj@bcm.edu.
2
Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
3
Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. Bernstein Centre for Computational Neuroscience, Tübingen, Germany. Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. Werner Reichardt Center for Integrative Neuroscience and Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
4
Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. Bernstein Centre for Computational Neuroscience, Tübingen, Germany. Werner Reichardt Center for Integrative Neuroscience and Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
5
Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. Bernstein Centre for Computational Neuroscience, Tübingen, Germany. astolias@bcm.edu xiaolonj@bcm.edu.

Abstract

The critique of Barth et al centers on three points: (i) the completeness of our study is overstated; (ii) the connectivity matrix we describe is biased by technical limitations of our brain-slicing and multipatching methods; and (iii) our cell classification scheme is arbitrary and we have simply renamed previously identified interneuron types. We address these criticisms in our Response.

PMID:
27609883
DOI:
10.1126/science.aaf6102
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire
Loading ...
Support Center