Verification of the disector method for counting neurons, with comments on the empirical method

C. M. Pover, R. E. Coggeshall

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

64 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The empirical and disector methods are unbiased sampling methods for determining numbers of neurons. The present study verifies and thus calibrates these methods by determining true numbers of ganglion cells in serial reconstructions and then using each method to estimate the same populations. The empirical method gives accurate counts but is laborious (inefficient). Five separate disector analyses, distinguished by height (h), were done for each ganglion. The findings are: (1) that the estimates are consistently low when h is minimal (reference and look-up sections are adjacent), but (2) the estimates are accurate when h is greater (one to four sections intervene between reference and look-up sections). We ascribe the difficulties with the first disector to ''lost'' or ''invisible'' caps. We emphasize that we would not have known of the problem unless we verified our counts. If there is suspicion that difficulties with profile recognition might occur, we recommend that serial sections of an appropriately chosen sample of tissue be prepared and 500-1,000 neurons (or, more generally, particles) be reconstructed. Then the method of choice can be used on the issue of choice to make certain of the necessary accuracy before proceeding with the main study.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)573-578
Number of pages6
JournalAnatomical Record
Volume231
Issue number4
StatePublished - 1991

Fingerprint

neurons
Neurons
Ganglia
methodology
Cell Count
sampling
Population
cells

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Anatomy

Cite this

Verification of the disector method for counting neurons, with comments on the empirical method. / Pover, C. M.; Coggeshall, R. E.

In: Anatomical Record, Vol. 231, No. 4, 1991, p. 573-578.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pover, C. M. ; Coggeshall, R. E. / Verification of the disector method for counting neurons, with comments on the empirical method. In: Anatomical Record. 1991 ; Vol. 231, No. 4. pp. 573-578.
@article{9f2f461934064a7d89ca9ca457be7191,
title = "Verification of the disector method for counting neurons, with comments on the empirical method",
abstract = "The empirical and disector methods are unbiased sampling methods for determining numbers of neurons. The present study verifies and thus calibrates these methods by determining true numbers of ganglion cells in serial reconstructions and then using each method to estimate the same populations. The empirical method gives accurate counts but is laborious (inefficient). Five separate disector analyses, distinguished by height (h), were done for each ganglion. The findings are: (1) that the estimates are consistently low when h is minimal (reference and look-up sections are adjacent), but (2) the estimates are accurate when h is greater (one to four sections intervene between reference and look-up sections). We ascribe the difficulties with the first disector to ''lost'' or ''invisible'' caps. We emphasize that we would not have known of the problem unless we verified our counts. If there is suspicion that difficulties with profile recognition might occur, we recommend that serial sections of an appropriately chosen sample of tissue be prepared and 500-1,000 neurons (or, more generally, particles) be reconstructed. Then the method of choice can be used on the issue of choice to make certain of the necessary accuracy before proceeding with the main study.",
author = "Pover, {C. M.} and Coggeshall, {R. E.}",
year = "1991",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "231",
pages = "573--578",
journal = "Anatomical Record - Part A Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology",
issn = "0003-276X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Verification of the disector method for counting neurons, with comments on the empirical method

AU - Pover, C. M.

AU - Coggeshall, R. E.

PY - 1991

Y1 - 1991

N2 - The empirical and disector methods are unbiased sampling methods for determining numbers of neurons. The present study verifies and thus calibrates these methods by determining true numbers of ganglion cells in serial reconstructions and then using each method to estimate the same populations. The empirical method gives accurate counts but is laborious (inefficient). Five separate disector analyses, distinguished by height (h), were done for each ganglion. The findings are: (1) that the estimates are consistently low when h is minimal (reference and look-up sections are adjacent), but (2) the estimates are accurate when h is greater (one to four sections intervene between reference and look-up sections). We ascribe the difficulties with the first disector to ''lost'' or ''invisible'' caps. We emphasize that we would not have known of the problem unless we verified our counts. If there is suspicion that difficulties with profile recognition might occur, we recommend that serial sections of an appropriately chosen sample of tissue be prepared and 500-1,000 neurons (or, more generally, particles) be reconstructed. Then the method of choice can be used on the issue of choice to make certain of the necessary accuracy before proceeding with the main study.

AB - The empirical and disector methods are unbiased sampling methods for determining numbers of neurons. The present study verifies and thus calibrates these methods by determining true numbers of ganglion cells in serial reconstructions and then using each method to estimate the same populations. The empirical method gives accurate counts but is laborious (inefficient). Five separate disector analyses, distinguished by height (h), were done for each ganglion. The findings are: (1) that the estimates are consistently low when h is minimal (reference and look-up sections are adjacent), but (2) the estimates are accurate when h is greater (one to four sections intervene between reference and look-up sections). We ascribe the difficulties with the first disector to ''lost'' or ''invisible'' caps. We emphasize that we would not have known of the problem unless we verified our counts. If there is suspicion that difficulties with profile recognition might occur, we recommend that serial sections of an appropriately chosen sample of tissue be prepared and 500-1,000 neurons (or, more generally, particles) be reconstructed. Then the method of choice can be used on the issue of choice to make certain of the necessary accuracy before proceeding with the main study.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026330929&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026330929&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 1793182

AN - SCOPUS:0026330929

VL - 231

SP - 573

EP - 578

JO - Anatomical Record - Part A Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology

JF - Anatomical Record - Part A Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology

SN - 0003-276X

IS - 4

ER -