Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21220095›Full record

ReviewNeuron2011

Imaging voltage in neurons.

Darcy S Peterka, Hiroto Takahashi, Rafael Yuste

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuron, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 206 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
206citing 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

206 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

146 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Darcy S PeterkaDepartment of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027, USA. dp2403@columbia.edu
Hiroto Takahashi
Rafael Yuste

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last decades, imaging membrane potential has become a fruitful approach to study neural circuits, especially in invertebrate preparations with large, resilient neurons. At the same time, particularly in mammalian preparations, voltage imaging methods suffer from poor signal to noise and secondary side effects, and they fall short of providing single-cell resolution when imaging of the activity of neuronal populations. As an introduction to these techniques, we briefly review different voltage imaging methods (including organic fluorophores, SHG chromophores, genetic indicators, hybrid, nanoparticles, and intrinsic approaches) and illustrate some of their applications to neuronal biophysics and mammalian circuit analysis. We discuss their mechanisms of voltage sensitivity, from reorientation, electrochromic, or electro-optical phenomena to interaction among chromophores or membrane scattering, and highlight their advantages and shortcomings, commenting on the outlook for development of novel voltage imaging methods.

Indexed as

AnimalsDiagnostic ImagingElectrophysiologyFluorescent DyesMembrane PotentialsNanoparticlesNerve NetNeural PathwaysNeuronsFluorescent Dyes

Identifiers

PMID21220095
PMCPMC3387979

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.