Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24739787›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2014

Astrocyte Ca²⁺ signalling: an unexpected complexity.

Andrea Volterra, Nicolas Liaudet, Iaroslav Savtchouk

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 230 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
230citing papers in PubMed
17.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

230 citing papers in PubMed, 446 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Functional CaScientific reports · 2026
    Article
  7. Multi-timescale Computation by Astrocytes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Mitochondrial CaBiomolecules · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Complex dynamics of glutamate-induced calcium responses in astrocytes from the nucleus of the solitary tract of mice.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

170 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrea VolterraDepartment of Fundamental Neurosciences, University of Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 9, 1005 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nicolas LiaudetDepartment of Fundamental Neurosciences, University of Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 9, 1005 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Iaroslav SavtchoukDepartment of Fundamental Neurosciences, University of Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 9, 1005 Lausanne, Switzerland.
University of Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Astrocyte Ca(2+) signalling has been proposed to link neuronal information in different spatial-temporal dimensions to achieve a higher level of brain integration. However, some discrepancies in the results of recent studies challenge this view and highlight key insufficiencies in our current understanding. In parallel, new experimental approaches that enable the study of astrocyte physiology at higher spatial-temporal resolution in intact brain preparations are beginning to reveal an unexpected level of compartmentalization and sophistication in astrocytic Ca(2+) dynamics. This newly revealed complexity needs to be attentively considered in order to understand how astrocytes may contribute to brain information processing.

Indexed as

AnimalsAstrocytesBrainCalciumCalcium SignalingHumansSynapsesCalcium

Identifiers

PMID24739787
OpenAlexW1972077052

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.