Back

A conserved molecular marker for connections between two evolutionarily distinct visual centers

Oliver, N.; Classe, M.; Werneburg, S.; Savier, E.

2026-08-20 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.08.17.745220 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Sensory systems share common circuit organization motifs across mammalian species, however, anatomical subdivisions show varying degrees of complexity depending on ecological niche and species-specific sensory requirements. While coarse neuroanatomical connections seem preserved within the visual system, it remains unknown if molecularly defined cell-types share a similar degree of conservation, regarding not only their functional properties but also connectivity. Here we analyze the organization, molecular marker expression, and connections between two prominent visual centers, the superior colliculus (SC) and the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus (dLGN), in the mouse and the tree shrew, a highly visual, diurnal species closely related to primates. Previous attempts to link molecular markers to subdivisions and connectivity of the dLGN have shown lack of conservation across species, thus preventing the systematic investigation of brain-wide interactions involved in vision. Leveraging recent single-cell and single-nucleus RNA sequencing studies, our results unravel a conserved molecular marker that shows spatial restriction in the dLGN and correlates with the location of connections from the SC in both the mouse and the tree shrew. We extend our findings by confirming the presence of this molecular marker in the human dLGN. These results provide a molecular definition and genetic access point for SC to dLGN connections in the mouse and tree shrew, enabling cell-type specific studies of the parallel processing of visual information.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.