Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18234978›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2008

Summation of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic inputs by motoneurons with highly active dendrites.

Allison S Hyngstrom, Michael D Johnson, C J Heckman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The knowns and unknowns of neural adaptations to resistance training.European journal of applied physiology · 2021
    Review
  11. Nonlinear Input-Output Functions of Motoneurons.Physiology (Bethesda, Md.) · 2020
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Gain control mechanisms in spinal motoneurons.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2014
    Article
  17. Motoneuron intrinsic properties, but not their receptive fields, recover in chronic spinal injury.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2013
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Push-pull control of motor output.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2012
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Allison S HyngstromDepartment of Physiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Michael D Johnson
C J Heckman

Funding

MONOAMINES EFFECTS ON MOTONEURON DISCHARGE PATTERNSR01NS034382 · NINDS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI HECKMAN, CHARLES · 1996 to 2013
$3.9M
Monoaminergic Control of Spinal InterneuronsF31NS048757 · NINDS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI HYNGSTROM, ALLISON SUZANNE · 2004 to 2007
$81k
NINDS NIH HHS 5F31NS048757-03NINDS NIH HHS F31 NS048757NINDS NIH HHS NS-034382NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS034382
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigated summation of steady excitatory and inhibitory inputs in spinal motoneurons using an in vivo preparation, the decerebrate cat, in which neuromodulatory input from the brain stem facilitated a strong persistent inward current (PIC) in dendritic regions. This dendritic PIC amplified both excitatory and inhibitory synaptic currents two- to threefold, but within different voltage ranges. Amplification of excitatory synaptic current peaked at voltage-clamp holding potentials near spike threshold (about -55 to -50 mV), whereas amplification of inhibitory current peaked at significantly more depolarized levels (about -45 to -40 mV). Thus the linear sum of excitatory and inhibitory currents tended to vary from net excitatory to net inhibitory as holding potential was depolarized. The actual summed currents, however, diverged from the predicted linear currents. At the peak of excitation, summation averaged about 15% sublinear (actual sum was less positive than the linear sum). In contrast, at the peak of inhibition, summation averaged about 18% supralinear (actual more positive than linear). Moreover, these nonlinear effects were substantially larger in cells where the variation from peak excitation to peak inhibition for linear summation was larger. When descending neuromodulatory input was eliminated by acute spinalization, PIC amplification was not observed and summation tended to be either sublinear or approximately linear, depending on input source. Overall, in cells with strong PICs, nonlinear summation of excitation and inhibition does occur, but this nonlinearity results in a more consistent relationship between membrane potential and the summed excitatory and inhibitory current.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiogenic MonoaminesCatsDecerebrate StateDendritesElectrophysiologyInterneuronsMembrane PotentialsMotor NeuronsNeural ConductionSynapsesBiogenic Monoamines

Identifiers

PMID18234978
PMCPMC3803147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.