Back

Rotating a petavoxel reconstruction exposes the viewing-angle bias inherent to Golgi-Cox and confocal dendritic-spine classification

Manjarrez, E.; Hernandez, S. T.; Zamora-Ursulo, M. A.; Flores, A.

2026-06-19 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.06.15.732500 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Dendritic spines are the principal postsynaptic sites of excitatory transmission. For over a century, their shape has been sorted into discrete categories such as filopodia, thin, long thin, stubby, mushroom, and branched, largely by Golgi-Cox impregnation and, more recently, confocal microscopy. However, both approaches share a fundamental limitation. The histological sectioning and single-viewpoint imaging that these methods rely on cannot control the orientation of a spine relative to the observer. Because a spine is a three-dimensional object, the projection seen depends on how its parent dendrite lies within the section. Here, using the publicly available H01 petavoxel reconstruction of human temporal cortex imaged by serial-section electron microscopy (EM), we show that spine-shape classification depends strongly on viewing angle. A total of 445 spines on layer 4 basal dendrites of five pyramidal neurons were classified from an initial viewpoint (Angle 1), then reclassified after rotation in Neuroglancer (Angle 2). Only 20.9% kept their category, so chance-corrected agreement was negligible (Cohens kappa = 0.027). These observations provide direct evidence that the rigid Golgi-Cox and confocal taxonomies conflate true spine morphology with the arbitrary angle of view. Our results, therefore, support recasting spine shape as a three-dimensional continuum, measurable in petavoxel reconstructions such as H01 through free rotation in Neuroglancer. Significance statementThe classification of dendritic spines into discrete shape classes underpins a vast literature on synaptic plasticity, development, and disease. Yet it rests on two-dimensional images whose viewing angle is not controlled. By rotating the same human spines in a nanoscale EM reconstruction, this study shows that four out of five spines change category with viewpoint alone. The finding exposes a systematic bias in Golgi-Cox and confocal classifications. It argues that spine morphology should be treated as a measurable three-dimensional continuum rather than a set of fixed labels.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 7%
12.2%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 3%
11.5%
3
Frontiers in Synaptic Neuroscience
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
4
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.7%
5
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.2%
6
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 14%
3.9%
7
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.9%
8
Nature Neuroscience
252 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.9%
50% of probability mass above
9
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
122 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.9%
10
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.9%
11
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 10%
3.3%
12
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.1%
13
Cerebral Cortex
396 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
14
Imaging Neuroscience
282 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
15
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 41%
2.3%
16
The Journal of Neuroscience
1025 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.0%
17
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 21%
1.7%
18
Journal of Cell Science
393 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
19
Journal of Comparative Neurology
73 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
20
Journal of Cell Biology
392 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
21
Molecular Biology of the Cell
311 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
22
Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
47 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
23
Cell Reports
1498 papers in training set
Top 25%
1.0%
24
Frontiers in Neural Circuits
43 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
25
Hippocampus
56 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
26
Neuron
337 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
27
Nature Methods
385 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%