Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21724619›Full record

ReviewIntegrative and comparative biology2011

Coping with variability in small neuronal networks.

Ronald L Calabrese, Brian J Norris, Angela Wenning, Terrence M Wright

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Integrative and comparative biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Modulation by Neuropeptides with Overlapping Targets Results in Functional Overlap in Oscillatory Circuit Activation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Circuit Stability to Perturbations Reveals Hidden Variability in the Balance of Intrinsic and Synaptic Conductances.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Consequences of degeneracy in network function.Current opinion in neurobiology · 2016
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ronald L CalabreseDepartment of Biology, Emory University, 1510 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. ronald.calabrese@emory.edu
Brian J Norris
Angela Wenning
Terrence M Wright
Emory University · USCalifornia State University, San Marcos · US

Funding

NEUROMODULATORY INFLUENCES ON MOTOR SYSTEMSR01NS024072 · NINDS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI CALABRESE, RONALD L · 1985 to 2011
$3.6M
NINDS NIH HHS NS-024072
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Experimental and corresponding modeling studies indicate that there is a 2- to 5-fold variation of intrinsic and synaptic parameters across animals while functional output is maintained. Here, we review experiments, using the heartbeat central pattern generator (CPG) in medicinal leeches, which explore the consequences of animal-to-animal variation in synaptic strength for coordinated motor output. We focus on a set of segmental heart motor neurons that all receive inhibitory synaptic input from the same four premotor interneurons. These four premotor inputs fire in a phase progression and the motor neurons also fire in a phase progression because of differences in synaptic strength profiles of the four inputs among segments. Our work tested the hypothesis that functional output is maintained in the face of animal-to-animal variation in the absolute strength of connections because relative strengths of the four inputs onto particular motor neurons is maintained across animals. Our experiments showed that relative strength is not strictly maintained across animals even as functional output is maintained, and animal-to-animal variations in strength of particular inputs do not correlate strongly with output phase. Further experiments measured the precise temporal pattern of the premotor inputs, the segmental synaptic strength profiles of their connections onto motor neurons, and the temporal pattern (phase progression) of those motor neurons all in the same animal for a series of 12 animals. The analysis of input and output in this sample of 12 individuals suggests that the number (four) of inputs to each motor neuron and the variability of the temporal pattern of input from the CPG across individuals weaken the influence of the strength of individual inputs. Moreover, the temporal pattern of the output varies as much across individuals as that of the input. Essentially, each animal arrives at a unique solution for how the network produces functional output.

Indexed as

AnimalsElectric StimulationGanglia, InvertebrateHeartHeart RateHirudo medicinalisInterneuronsMotor NeuronsNerve NetNeural InhibitionSpecies SpecificitySynapsesSynaptic Transmission

Identifiers

PMID21724619
PMCPMC3223479
OpenAlexW2098830139

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.