Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21533065›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2011

Quantifying the relative contributions of divisive and subtractive feedback to rhythm generation.

Joël Tabak, John Rinzel, Richard Bertram

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Slow negative feedback enhances robustness of square-wave bursting.Journal of computational neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Gain control through divisive inhibition prevents abrupt transition to chaos in a neural mass model.Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics · 2015
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Joël TabakDepartment of Biological Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. joel@neuro.fsu.edu
John Rinzel
Richard Bertram

Funding

REGULATION OF PROLACTIN SECRETION AT THE LACTOTROPHR01DK043200 · NIDDK · FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI BERTRAM, RICHARD, GONZALEZ-IGLESIAS, ARTURO EDUARDO · 1992 to 2014
$4.9M
NIDDK NIH HHS DK043200NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK043200
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biological systems are characterized by a high number of interacting components. Determining the role of each component is difficult, addressed here in the context of biological oscillations. Rhythmic behavior can result from the interplay of positive feedback that promotes bistability between high and low activity, and slow negative feedback that switches the system between the high and low activity states. Many biological oscillators include two types of negative feedback processes: divisive (decreases the gain of the positive feedback loop) and subtractive (increases the input threshold) that both contribute to slowly move the system between the high- and low-activity states. Can we determine the relative contribution of each type of negative feedback process to the rhythmic activity? Does one dominate? Do they control the active and silent phase equally? To answer these questions we use a neural network model with excitatory coupling, regulated by synaptic depression (divisive) and cellular adaptation (subtractive feedback). We first attempt to apply standard experimental methodologies: either passive observation to correlate the variations of a variable of interest to system behavior, or deletion of a component to establish whether a component is critical for the system. We find that these two strategies can lead to contradictory conclusions, and at best their interpretive power is limited. We instead develop a computational measure of the contribution of a process, by evaluating the sensitivity of the active (high activity) and silent (low activity) phase durations to the time constant of the process. The measure shows that both processes control the active phase, in proportion to their speed and relative weight. However, only the subtractive process plays a major role in setting the duration of the silent phase. This computational method can be used to analyze the role of negative feedback processes in a wide range of biological rhythms.

Indexed as

Action PotentialsAnimalsComputational BiologyComputer SimulationHumansModels, BiologicalModels, NeurologicalModels, StatisticalModels, TheoreticalNeural Networks, ComputerNeuronsOscillometrySoftware

Identifiers

PMID21533065
PMCPMC3080843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.