Left-Right Brain-Wide Asymmetry of Neuroanatomy in the Mouse Brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Left-right asymmetry of the human brain is widespread through its anatomy and function. However, limited microscopic understanding of it exists, particularly for anatomical asymmetry where there are few well-established animal models. In humans, most brain regions show subtle, population-average regional asymmetries in thickness or surface area, alongside a macro-scale twisting called the cerebral petalia in which the right hemisphere protrudes anteriorly past the left. Here, we ask whether neuroanatomical asymmetries can be observed in mice, leveraging 6 mouse neuroimaging cohorts from 5 different research groups (∼3,500 animals). We found an anterior-posterior pattern of volume asymmetry with anterior regions larger on the right and posterior regions larger on the left. This pattern appears driven by similar trends in surface area and positional asymmetries, with the results together indicating a small brain-wide twisting pattern, similar to the human cerebral petalia. Furthermore, the results show no apparent relationship to known functional asymmetries in mice, emphasizing the complexity of the structure-function relationship in brain asymmetry. By establishing a signature of anatomical brain asymmetry in mice, we aim to provide a foundation for future studies to probe the mechanistic underpinnings of brain asymmetry seen in humans – a feature of the brain with extremely limited understanding. Significance Statement The human brain shows significant left-right anatomical asymmetry. Understanding its microscopic basis has implications for studies of autism and schizophrenia, evolution, embryonic brain development, and the relationship between structure and function in the brain. One of the biggest challenges to understanding this aspect of the brain is that animal models are limited. Here we show a brain-wide twisting pattern of asymmetry in the mouse brain using over 3,500 animals from six independent cohorts. These findings provide a basis for using mice to interrogate the microscopic underpinnings of anatomical asymmetry in humans and a roadmap for exploring anatomical asymmetry in additional species.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".