Adult Neurogenesis: What Research Can and Cannot Establish
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 12, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Does adult neurogenesis occur in humans?
Adult neurogenesis is the production of new neurons from precursor cells after an organism has reached adulthood. It is firmly established in the dentate gyrus of many adult mammals. For the human hippocampus, the evidence has developed from disputed postmortem staining and indirect birth-dating measurements into increasingly detailed molecular studies. A 2025 Science study identified proliferating neural progenitors in adult human hippocampal tissue, while a 2026 Nature study described neural stem-cell, neuroblast, and immature-neuron populations across adult and aging samples. These results strengthen the case that a neurogenic cellular program persists in at least some adult human hippocampi.
That finding requires an important scientific distinction. Detecting cells capable of division or cells bearing an immature-neuron molecular signature does not directly establish how many new neurons are ultimately born, survive, join functioning circuits, or contribute to a person's learning, mood, or memory. The strongest contemporary conclusion is that adult human hippocampal tissue can contain cellular populations consistent with ongoing neurogenesis; its frequency, distribution, functional contribution, and variation between individuals remain active research questions. The historical disagreement over adult human neurogenesis is therefore best understood by examining which stage of the process each study actually measured.
What scientists mean by adult neurogenesis
A neuron is a specialized cell that participates in nervous-system signaling through electrical and chemical processes. Neurogenesis begins when a neural stem cell or neural progenitor enters a developmental sequence leading toward a neuronal identity. This involves several distinguishable events: activation or division of a precursor; production of a neuronal daughter cell; differentiation into a neuroblast or immature neuron; maturation of neuronal structure and physiology; and eventual incorporation into a functional circuit. A cell can appear at one stage without providing evidence that every subsequent stage has been completed.
The expression adult hippocampal neurogenesis, often abbreviated AHN in research papers, usually refers to this sequence in the dentate gyrus, a component of the hippocampal formation. Neuron formation during fetal development, the survival of neurons born earlier, the generation of other brain-cell types, and remodeling of existing synapses are different processes. A mature neuron changing its connections is an example of neuroplasticity, whether or not any new neuron has been produced.
Neural stem cells can sometimes remain quiescent, meaning they are alive but not actively dividing. Progenitors are often more restricted in the types of descendants they generate. Neuroblasts are developing cells committed toward neuronal characteristics. Researchers identify these populations with combinations of gene expression, protein markers, cellular shape, and tissue location rather than a single universally decisive label. Distinguishing an adult-born immature neuron from a neuron that has remained in an immature state for years is especially important in humans.
Where in the brain is adult neurogenesis studied?
The hippocampal dentate gyrus
In rodent models, the best-characterized adult neurogenic environment is the subgranular zone bordering the dentate gyrus granule-cell layer. Precursor cells and their descendants interact with established neurons, astrocytes, blood vessels, immune-related cells, extracellular signals, and the surrounding tissue architecture. Under experimentally studied conditions, some newly generated granule neurons mature and acquire synaptic inputs and outputs. The dentate gyrus contributes to hippocampal computations related to representing events, contexts, and similar experiences, but its functions arise through distributed circuitry rather than one cell population acting alone.
Human hippocampal anatomy is considerably larger, more complex, and different in developmental timing from a rodent's. Some anatomical and molecular features are shared; the rate and consequences of neuron formation cannot be transferred by proportional scaling. The hippocampus and its memory-related circuitry remain relevant whether adult neurogenesis is frequent, rare, or highly variable among individuals.
Other proposed sites
Adult production of new neurons has been investigated around the ventricular system and olfactory pathways, in addition to the hippocampus. Robust migration of newly produced neurons from the subventricular zone toward the olfactory bulb is well described in adult rodents. Comparable activity in adult humans appears substantially different and has generated its own methodological disputes. Evidence regarding some other mammalian brain regions is species-dependent. The existence of neurogenesis in one location therefore never establishes widespread replacement of neurons throughout the entire adult human brain.
How the scientific debate developed
Early work by Joseph Altman and colleagues challenged the assumption that neuronal birth necessarily ends with early development. Subsequent experiments using cell-labeling methods and improved microscopy established adult-generated neurons in particular mammalian systems. The history matters because techniques that directly track living cell lineages in laboratory animals cannot generally be applied to living human brains. Human neuroscience has consequently depended on a combination of rare labeling opportunities, postmortem tissue analysis, molecular measurements, and statistical reconstruction.
In 1998, Eriksson and colleagues reported cells with neuronal properties and evidence of DNA synthesis in human hippocampal tissue from a small group of patients who had previously received bromodeoxyuridine for medical reasons. The study established an influential human proof-of-principle while leaving questions about sample selection, the specific biological meaning of labeled cells, and population-level rates. The original paper is available through Nature Medicine.
Spalding and colleagues later used atmospheric radiocarbon incorporated into genomic DNA to estimate neuronal turnover in human hippocampal tissue. Their 2013 Cell paper provided evidence compatible with turnover across adult life. The numerical rates frequently quoted from this research were outputs of a model with assumptions about populations and turnover dynamics; they should not be treated as a measurement of each person's daily number of newborn neurons.
Why major studies reached apparently incompatible conclusions
Two prominent reports published in 2018 showed the divide. Sorrells and colleagues documented a steep developmental reduction of detectable immature neurons in human dentate gyrus and reported an absence or near absence of their characteristic signals in adult samples examined under their conditions. In contrast, Boldrini and colleagues reported markers of neural progenitors and immature neurons across adult ages in carefully selected tissue. Both interrogated tissue after death, but differed in sampling, methods, cell identification, and analytical choices.
In 2019, Moreno-Jiménez and colleagues reported numerous immature-neuron-marker-positive cells in neurologically healthy adult hippocampi and a decline in samples with Alzheimer's disease. The team emphasized that fixation conditions and other tissue-handling procedures can dramatically affect detection. Differences in signal preservation offer one explanation for conflicting results, but do not by themselves eliminate alternative interpretations of the markers. A rigorous account retains both the technical explanation and the biological uncertainty.
A subsequent 2021 reexamination by Sorrells and colleagues used comparisons and positive controls to argue that adult human samples showed little convincing evidence of ongoing neuronal production. The disagreement concerned both sensitivity and specificity: whether adult-born cells were missed by a test and whether some cells that tested positive were actually newborn. Those are separate questions. The best-designed evidence combines independent ways of identifying cell state, location, age, and lineage instead of treating one staining result as a definitive verdict.
What changed in 2025: proliferating progenitors detected in adult human hippocampus
The 2025 Science study by Dumitru and colleagues applied high-resolution single-nucleus transcriptomic approaches and computational methods to human hippocampal material across the life span. It reported populations of neural progenitors in adult tissue that shared molecular characteristics with developing precursor cells, together with evidence of proliferation. Additional analyses supported their localization in dentate-gyrus-related tissue. The combination of molecular classification and cell-cycle evidence addresses a major weakness of interpretations based only on an immature-neuron stain.
The result supports the existence of proliferating neural precursors within the adult human hippocampal environment in at least the sampled material. It does not provide longitudinal movies of individual human stem cells producing daughter neurons, following those neurons for years, and recording their later contributions to memory. Nor does it supply a validated population rate of successful adult neuron integration. Proliferation is an early stage of the proposed pathway, and differentiating the beginning of a process from its full completion is indispensable.
Statistical separation of related cell populations also depends on tissue quality, the number and background of donors, cell-recovery biases, identification of rare populations, and the suitability of developmental reference data. The study substantially advances the evidence, while its exact results should be evaluated within those sampling and measurement conditions rather than generalized to every adult hippocampus.
What changed in 2026: molecular evidence across aging and Alzheimer's disease
In February 2026, Disouky and colleagues published a Nature study examining postmortem hippocampal material from young and older adults, people with preclinical pathological changes, people with Alzheimer's disease, and older adults selected for unusually strong memory performance. The researchers combined single-nucleus RNA-sequencing and chromatin-accessibility measurements to characterize molecular programs in cell populations associated with neurogenesis and the surrounding hippocampal environment.
The study identified signatures interpreted as neural stem cells, neuroblasts, and immature granule neurons, and reported associations between the abundance or molecular properties of some of these populations and the different donor groups. Findings involving Alzheimer's disease were consistent with disruptions in elements of the proposed neurogenic pathway. Data concerning the unusually high-performing older group were exploratory within a relatively small selected sample; they must not be converted into a universal rule that more neurogenesis produces exceptional memory.
The authors explicitly described the relevance of these cells to human cognition as unknown. Cross-sectional human postmortem comparisons can characterize molecular differences but cannot establish the temporal direction of disease relationships or demonstrate that changing one cell population would alter the clinical outcome. The 2026 study is strong evidence for a biologically plausible cellular landscape of adult human hippocampal neurogenesis, not a demonstration that the newly identified populations are a clinically actionable target.
What different research methods actually measure
Cell proliferation markers and DNA labeling
Proliferation markers such as Ki-67 indicate that a cell is participating in particular phases of the cell cycle. They do not specify the final identity of the resulting cell or prove that a mature neuron will emerge. DNA-labeling methods such as bromodeoxyuridine can reveal DNA synthesis, and combinations with neuronal characteristics may strengthen an inference, but labeling must be interpreted in relation to cell division, repair processes, medical exposure, and the interval between exposure and tissue collection. These tools are highly informative under controlled animal experiments and are rarely available as a direct test in humans.
Immunohistochemistry and immature-neuron proteins
Immunohistochemistry uses antibodies to reveal proteins in preserved tissue. Doublecortin (DCX), PSA-NCAM, SOX2, nestin, NeuN, and related markers can help classify stages or neighboring cell populations when used appropriately. Their meaning depends on coexpression, shape, location, and controls. DCX-positive cells are commonly interpreted as immature neurons, but an immature molecular signature is not a definitive birth certificate. Some cells could retain developmental markers for an extended period or express them under conditions not equivalent to recent neurogenesis.
Human postmortem tissue is especially sensitive to the time between death and preservation, length and chemistry of fixation, antibody performance, antigen retrieval, anatomical sampling, and the distinction between diseased and comparison material. An absence of staining can result from biological scarcity or poor sensitivity. A positive stain can indicate the relevant protein without uniquely establishing the cell's history. Moreno-Jiménez et al. (2019) and Tosoni et al. (2023) show why methodological standardization and transparent cell-identification criteria are central to this debate.
Radiocarbon birth dating
Atmospheric carbon-14 levels changed during mid-20th-century nuclear testing and were incorporated into living organisms. Measuring carbon-14 in genomic DNA can help reconstruct when some cells were generated. In the adult human hippocampus, Spalding et al. (2013) used this approach with modeling to estimate turnover. The method links molecular age information to population-level inference, but its conclusions depend on isolating appropriate cells, measurement uncertainty, and the turnover model. It is retrospective and does not directly record new neurons firing or forming synapses.
Single-cell and single-nucleus sequencing
Single-cell RNA sequencing and single-nucleus RNA sequencing profile patterns of gene expression that help classify cells. Nucleus-level approaches can work with frozen postmortem tissue but sample nuclear RNA rather than every transcript in the intact living cell. Researchers infer developmental trajectories by comparing populations at different molecular states. The arrows in those trajectories are statistical interpretations of a pattern, not recordings of the same cell moving through time.
Sequencing can miss rare populations, and clustering depends on sample preparation, reference datasets, computational thresholds, cell-type annotations, and batch effects. Tosoni and colleagues examined how these choices can sustain seemingly conflicting interpretations. The 2025 Science and 2026 Nature studies used sophisticated molecular tools to strengthen identification, but their cellular classifications still require anatomical and functional validation.
Chromatin, spatial mapping, and physiology
Single-nucleus chromatin-accessibility assays characterize DNA regions that are more or less available to regulatory proteins, providing information about the molecular state and possible developmental programs of a cell. Spatial assays can help determine where candidate progenitors or immature neurons lie relative to the granule-cell layer and other microenvironments. Neither technology automatically establishes a cell's birth date. Electrophysiological recordings can characterize electrical properties of sampled cells but ordinarily cannot reveal lifelong human lineage history.
MRI, functional MRI, PET, and EEG
Conventional structural MRI measures tissue properties and macroscopic anatomy; functional MRI primarily detects blood-oxygenation-related signals associated with neural activity; PET can quantify particular tracer distributions or metabolic and molecular processes depending on the tracer; and EEG measures electrical potentials at the scalp. These instruments are valuable for studying hippocampal anatomy, networks, and physiology. None is a validated routine method for directly counting newly generated hippocampal neurons in a living person. A change in hippocampal volume, activation, or a blood biomarker cannot be equated with a measured change in adult neurogenesis.
What is well established in animal models?
Lineage tracing is the critical experimental advantage of laboratory species. Researchers can label progenitor cells, follow their descendants, determine their neuronal identity, track developmental stages, and in some experiments alter those cells to test functional consequences. Rodent evidence establishes ongoing dentate-gyrus neuron production and demonstrates that changes in the neurogenic pathway can affect certain aspects of behavior under particular conditions. This allows stronger causal inferences than associations in human autopsy samples.
The broader claim that newborn neurons are uniquely necessary for all learning, emotional resilience, or recovery from brain disease is unsupported. Many behaviors depend on established circuits, previous learning, sensory inputs, neuromodulation, and interactions among different brain regions. Different experiments manipulate different stages of neurogenesis and sometimes affect other processes at the same time. Findings must be interpreted in relation to the species, age, sex, environment, behavioral test, and selectivity of the intervention.
Cross-species differences are not minor technical details. Rodents, primates, and humans differ in developmental timing, hippocampal anatomy, cell maturation, lifespan, and natural behavior. A mechanism established with a genetic manipulation in a mouse can be considered a candidate human mechanism, but human evidence is needed before it becomes a claim about adult human cognitive function or medical treatment.
How might newly born neurons influence hippocampal circuits?
In experimental models, newly produced dentate-gyrus granule neurons pass through stages of altered excitability, synaptic integration, and sensitivity to activity. These properties suggest ways in which a limited population of new cells might influence how existing circuits encode overlapping experiences. One influential line of research concerns pattern separation: the computational distinction between representations of similar inputs. A cellular manipulation affecting discrimination in rodents can inform a possible mechanistic role, but the human contribution has not been isolated from ordinary circuit adaptation and other forms of plasticity.
Other proposed links involve stress responses, flexibility in updating memories, temporal organization of experiences, and affect-related behavior. Such proposals can be supported by experiments in nonhuman systems to varying degrees. In adults with human brains, a convincing causal claim would need reliable measurement of newborn-cell production, an intervention that specifically changes that process, and evidence that the predicted behavioral change follows from it rather than from concurrent vascular, immune, synaptic, endocrine, or motivational effects.
Does adult neurogenesis decline with age?
Aging changes the biological environment of many tissues, and animal studies frequently observe alterations in stem-cell activity and newly generated neuron maturation. In humans, however, age-related conclusions vary with the stage and marker measured and the properties of sampled individuals. Boldrini et al. (2018) reported several relatively preserved immature-cell measures over their sampled age range, while Sorrells et al. (2018) described a marked decline by adulthood. The two studies cannot be reconciled simply by averaging their reported numbers.
Studies from 2019 and 2026 have broadened analysis of adult and aging samples using different techniques. Apparent group differences may reflect genuine biology, donor selection, medical history, postmortem quality, or assay properties. A person’s age by itself is therefore insufficient to calculate an evidence-based daily neuron-production rate. Some commonly circulated numerical estimates originated from one modeling framework rather than universal direct counts.
Can exercise, learning, sleep, or diet increase adult human neurogenesis?
Animal experiments have linked physical activity, enriched environments, certain stress exposures, and other conditions to markers or experimentally tracked stages of hippocampal neurogenesis. The direction and magnitude depend on the protocol and the animal. In humans, exercise can influence fitness, blood flow, mental health, and some measures of cognition, but improvement in any of these outcomes does not identify which microscopic process caused it. Reviews of exercise and neurogenesis repeatedly note the translational challenge.
Evidence that sleep, complex learning, nutrition, meditation, or a specific supplement can reliably increase the number of newly integrated neurons in the healthy adult human hippocampus remains insufficient for a quantified claim. Some behaviors can have benefits for other independently supported reasons. The responsible inference is to evaluate those benefits using human outcomes actually measured, without asserting that neuron birth was their demonstrated mechanism.
There is currently no validated consumer test that can tell someone their individual hippocampal neurogenesis rate before or after a lifestyle change. Commercial claims to measure or boost this rate should specify the actual method, the human validation study, and whether the result concerns cell proliferation, immature-cell markers, neuron survival, or functional integration. These are distinct endpoints.
Adult neurogenesis, Alzheimer's disease, and psychiatric disorders
Several postmortem studies describe differences in cell populations associated with neurogenesis among donors with Alzheimer's disease and comparison groups. Moreno-Jiménez et al. (2019) reported fewer immature-neuron-marker-positive cells with disease progression; Disouky et al. (2026) investigated molecular patterns across Alzheimer's-related cohorts. A disease-associated difference could arise from direct pathology, preceding vulnerability, changed cell survival, tissue handling, medication exposure, or a combination. The observed association does not establish that reduced neurogenesis causes the disease or that increasing it will reverse cognitive impairment.
A 2025 Cell Stem Cell study analyzed postmortem human hippocampi from groups with major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and comparison donors. It reported differences in components of the proposed neurogenic pathway and its cellular niche, with associations involving demographic and lifestyle-related factors. These findings describe research-level cellular relationships; they do not make neurogenesis a diagnostic criterion, clinical screening marker, or validated mechanism of treatment response.
The clinical implications should be framed according to direct evidence. Diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease or a psychiatric disorder relies on the appropriate clinical standards, and treatments are evaluated through patient outcomes and controlled studies. Research on adult neurogenesis may eventually inform disease mechanisms or therapeutic targets, but a molecular marker in a postmortem hippocampus is not an individual clinical test and does not establish treatment efficacy.
Why a single biomarker cannot settle the question
Different candidate biomarkers capture different biological stages. An immature-neuron protein may be present after birth or persist in developmentally unusual cells. A proliferative signature may appear in a dividing precursor that later dies or becomes a different cell type. A neural stem-cell expression profile may identify a potential source without documenting how frequently that source generates neurons. The scientific question is therefore not answered by asking whether one gene or protein is detectable in the adult hippocampus.
A stronger convergent demonstration would combine molecular identity, location, evidence of adult cellular birth, lineage relationship, survival, maturation, and electrophysiological or synaptic integration. In animal models, elements of this chain can be observed prospectively. Human studies obtain different indirect parts of the chain from different donors and techniques. That patchwork has improved markedly, but it explains why credible studies can support neuron-formation potential while leaving the overall rate and functional effect unresolved.
How to judge new headlines about adult neurogenesis
The most useful question is which event the investigators directly measured. A report of proliferating progenitors describes cell-cycle activity in an identified population. A report of immature-neuron markers describes molecular phenotype and location. A cell-trajectory analysis suggests a developmental relationship from computational patterns. A brain-volume or memory change describes a macroscopic or behavioral outcome. Each may contribute to a comprehensive model, but one type of observation cannot substitute for the others.
Check the species and donor group, number of biological samples, whether tissue was collected during life or after death, the controls used to validate markers, and whether the authors measured an intervention or merely compared groups. It also matters whether the paper shows actual birth dating, independent methods, preregistered outcomes, and replication. When a claim concerns treating dementia, depression, or another condition, look for clinical trials measuring patient-relevant outcomes; cell associations alone do not provide that evidence.
Adult neurogenesis versus other forms of neuroplasticity
The mature human brain can adapt through changes in synaptic strength, dendritic structure, neural excitability, myelination, network organization, and strategies for performing tasks. These mechanisms are biologically real and do not depend on proving an individual's rate of adult neuron birth. Thus, a person can learn a skill or recover some function through neural adaptation without any demonstrated addition of hippocampal neurons. Neuroplasticity is the broader category, while adult neurogenesis is a specific proposed cellular route within it.
Similarly, the presence of a neural progenitor population does not mean a brain injury will automatically trigger useful neuron replacement. Successful repair would require new cells of the right identity to survive, migrate when necessary, integrate into the proper networks, and operate without disrupting existing circuitry. Those conditions are far more demanding than detecting a proliferation marker in a laboratory sample.
What research can establish as of 2026
First, adult dentate-gyrus neurogenesis is directly demonstrated in several experimental animal systems through methods that can track lineage and maturation. Second, multiple independent studies of human tissue—including DNA birth dating, immunohistochemistry, and more recent single-nucleus analyses—support the presence of cell states and processes compatible with continuing hippocampal neurogenesis in adulthood. Third, the field contains genuine disagreement about detection methods, rates, and biological interpretation. The 2025 and 2026 papers materially strengthen the cellular evidence, especially for precursor and immature-neuronal populations.
Research has not yet established a universal number of adult-born neurons produced daily in each living human, their survival and incorporation rates across populations, or a definitive causal contribution to individual memory and mental health. It has not established an MRI-based personal neurogenesis test, a consumer intervention proven to grow integrated neurons in humans, or a clinical treatment whose benefit has been shown to depend specifically on increasing adult hippocampal neurogenesis. Progress at the molecular level should be represented with the same precision as these remaining gaps.
Frequently asked questions
Do adults grow new brain cells?
Adults retain multiple kinds of brain cells that can change, and new non-neuronal cells may be produced under various conditions. The more specific question is the formation of new neurons. Evidence in adult human hippocampal tissue increasingly supports the presence of proliferating neural precursors and immature neuronal populations, but the number of new neurons that ultimately mature and join circuits remains uncertain.
Is human adult neurogenesis proven or disproven?
Neither a claim of complete lifelong absence nor a claim that substantial new neurons are produced in every adult human has been established across all relevant populations and methods. Modern human studies support the existence of a neurogenesis-related cellular pathway in some adult hippocampi. Determining its rate, durability, and function requires more evidence than identifying progenitor or immature-neuron markers.
Why do studies disagree about whether it happens?
Researchers use different donor populations, age groups, postmortem intervals, fixation methods, antibodies, sequencing pipelines, and standards for classifying cells. Some methods are sensitive to precursor proliferation and others to neuronal immaturity or modeled turnover. These differences can generate distinct results even when teams conduct careful experiments. Replication using multiple independent measures is the constructive way to resolve disagreement.
Does neurogenesis happen throughout the entire brain?
The strongest animal evidence concerns selected niches, especially the dentate gyrus in adult rodents. Findings about other adult brain regions vary by species and developmental stage. No reliable evidence supports the popular idea that every part of the adult human brain routinely generates large numbers of replacement neurons.
How many neurons does an adult human produce every day?
Published numerical estimates exist, especially those derived from radiocarbon turnover models, but their interpretation depends on assumptions and sample composition. There is no clinically validated method for calculating a particular living adult's daily neuronal birth or successful integration. A single universally applicable daily figure would falsely imply more precision than the current evidence provides.
Can exercise or learning make my hippocampus grow new neurons?
Exercise and enriched experience modify adult neurogenesis in some animal studies. Human exercise and learning can have real benefits, but the claim that they reliably increase newly integrated hippocampal neurons in an individual human has not been directly established. Brain-volume changes, better test performance, and improved mood do not measure neuronal birth.
Does depression mean my brain has stopped producing neurons?
No such individual inference follows from the evidence. Postmortem group studies of psychiatric disorders report associations in markers and the surrounding cellular environment, often with substantial potential confounding. These measurements do not diagnose a disorder, identify the cause of someone's symptoms, or indicate whether that person produces newborn hippocampal neurons.
Could stimulating neurogenesis cure Alzheimer's disease?
Adult neurogenesis is a research interest in Alzheimer's disease because several studies report disease-related differences in candidate progenitor and immature-neuron populations. It remains unknown whether selectively increasing human hippocampal neuron production would prevent, modify, or treat the disease. Effective treatments need evidence from appropriate human clinical studies rather than extrapolation from postmortem correlations or rodent interventions.
Can a brain scan measure my neurogenesis?
Currently, ordinary clinical MRI, fMRI, PET, and EEG are not validated direct measures of a person's hippocampal neuron-birth rate. A scan can provide important structural, physiological, or molecular information according to the instrument and protocol, but it cannot by itself distinguish a newborn neuron from an existing neuron adapting its function.
What would settle the debate scientifically?
Convergent, reproducible evidence would identify human adult precursor populations, establish birth timing and neuronal lineage, show maturation and long-term survival, and test the effects of these cells on functional circuitry using ethically and technically appropriate methods. Improved tissue processing, spatial and multiomic data, independent cohorts, and validated physiological models can narrow the uncertainty even when direct lineage tracing in living humans remains difficult.
Related Articles
References
Boldrini, M., Fulmore, C. A., Tartt, A. N., et al. (2018). Human hippocampal neurogenesis persists throughout aging. Cell Stem Cell, 22(4), 589–599.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2018.03.015
Disouky, A., Sanborn, M. A., Sabitha, K. R., et al. (2026). Human hippocampal neurogenesis in adulthood, ageing and Alzheimer’s disease. Nature, 652, 1264–1273. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10169-4
Dumitru, I., Paterlini, M., Zamboni, M., et al. (2025). Identification of proliferating neural progenitors in the adult human hippocampus. Science, 389(6755), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adu9575
Eriksson, P. S., Perfilieva, E., Björk-Eriksson, T., et al. (1998). Neurogenesis in the adult human hippocampus. Nature Medicine, 4, 1313–1317. https://doi.org/10.1038/3305
Márquez-Valadez, B., Gallardo-Caballero, M., & Llorens-Martín, M. (2025). Human adult hippocampal neurogenesis is shaped by neuropsychiatric disorders, demographics, and lifestyle-related factors. Cell Stem Cell, 32(10), 1577–1594.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2025.08.010
Moreno-Jiménez, E. P., Flor-García, M., Terreros-Roncal, J., et al. (2019). Adult hippocampal neurogenesis is abundant in neurologically healthy subjects and drops sharply in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Nature Medicine, 25, 554–560. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0375-9
Sorrells, S. F., Paredes, M. F., Cebrian-Silla, A., et al. (2018). Human hippocampal neurogenesis drops sharply in children to undetectable levels in adults. Nature, 555, 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25975
Sorrells, S. F., Paredes, M. F., Zhang, Z., et al. (2021). Positive controls in adults fail to reveal newborn neurons in the adult human dentate gyrus. Journal of Neuroscience, 41(12), 2554–2565. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0676-20.2020
Spalding, K. L., Bergmann, O., Alkass, K., et al. (2013). Dynamics of hippocampal neurogenesis in adult humans. Cell, 153(6), 1219–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.002
Tosoni, G., Ayyildiz, D., Bryois, J., et al. (2023). Mapping human adult hippocampal neurogenesis with single-cell transcriptomics: Reconciling controversy or fueling the debate? Neuron, 111(11), 1714–1731.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2023.03.010