ArticleAutonomic neuroscience : basic & clinical2010
Vasomotor sympathetic neurons are more excitable than secretomotor sympathetic neurons in bullfrog paravertebral ganglia.
Article in Autonomic neuroscience : basic & clinical, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patch-clamp analysis of nicotinic synapses whose strength straddles the firing threshold of rat sympathetic neurons.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Virtual leak channels modulate firing dynamics and synaptic integration in rat sympathetic neurons: implications for ganglionic transmission in vivo.The Journal of physiology · 2015Article
- Homeostatic regulation of M-current modulates synaptic integration in secretomotor, but not vasomotor, sympathetic neurons in the bullfrog.The Journal of physiology · 2010Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We compared the excitability of secretomotor B and vasomotor C neurons using virtual nicotinic synapses implemented with the dynamic clamp technique. In response to fast synaptic conductance (g(syn)) waveforms modeled after B cell synaptic currents, it took 17.1+/-1.2nS to elicit spikes in 104 B cells and 3.3+/-0.3nS in 35 C cells. After normalizing for whole-cell capacitance, C cells were still more excitable than B cells (76+/-5pS/pF vs. 169+/-8pS/pF). Stimulating C cells with slower g(syn) waveforms, identical to synaptic currents in C cells, further accentuated the difference between cell types. The phenotypic excitability difference did not correlate with time in culture (1-12days) and could not be explained by resting potential (B cells: -65.6+/-0.9mV, C cells: -63.1+/-1.6mV) or input conductance density, which was greater in C cells (24.4+/-4.3pS/pF) than B cells (14.5+/-1.5pS/pF). Action potentials elicited by virtual EPSPs had a threshold voltage for firing that was -28.4+/-0.7mV in C cells and -19.7+/-0.4mV B cells, and an upstroke velocity and peak spike potential that were greater in B cells. The repetitive firing properties of B and C cells were similar; 69-78% phasic, 11-16% adapting and 11-15% tonic. We propose that B and C neurons express different types of Na(+) channels that shape how they integrate nicotinic synaptic potentials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.