ArticleEuropean biophysics journal : EBJ2010
The contribution of cationic conductances to the potential of rod photoreceptors.
Article in European biophysics journal : EBJ, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Where vision begins.Pflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology · 2021Article
- The role of voltage-gated ion channels in visual function and disease in mammalian photoreceptors.Pflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology · 2021Review
- A Comparison of the Primary Sensory Neurons Used in Olfaction and Vision.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2020Review
- A pressure-polishing set-up to fabricate patch pipettes that seal on virtually any membrane, yielding low access resistance and efficient intracellular perfusion.European biophysics journal : EBJ · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The contribution of cationic conductances in shaping the rod photovoltage was studied in light adapted cells recorded under whole-cell voltage- or current-clamp conditions. Depolarising current steps (of size comparable to the light-regulated current) produced monotonic responses when the prepulse holding potential (V (h)) was -40 mV (i.e. corresponding to the membrane potential in the dark). At V (h) = -60 mV (simulating the steady-state response to an intense background of light) current injections <35 pA (mimicking a light decrement) produced instead an initial depolarisation that declined to a plateau, and voltage transiently overshot V (h) at the stimulus offset. Current steps >40 pA produced a steady depolarisation to approximately -16 mV at both V (h). The difference between the responses at the two V (h) was primarily generated by the slow delayed-rectifier-like K(+) current (I (Kx)), which therefore strongly affects both the photoresponse rising and falling phase. The steady voltage observed at both V (h) in response to large current injections was instead generated by Ca-activated K(+) channels (I (KCa)), as previously found. Both I (Kx) and I (KCa) oppose the cation influx, occurring at the light stimulus offset through the cGMP-gated channels and the voltage-activated Ca(2+) channels (I (Ca)). This avoids that the cation influx could erratically depolarise the rod past its normal resting value, thus allowing a reliable dim stimuli detection, without slowing down the photovoltage recovery kinetics. The latter kinetics was instead accelerated by the hyperpolarisation-activated, non-selective current (I (h)) and I (Ca). Blockade of all K(+) currents with external TEA unmasked a I (Ca)-dependent regenerative behaviour.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19234695What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.