Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25355220›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2014

Difference in the gain in the phototransduction cascade between rods and cones in carp.

Naoto Kawakami, Satoru Kawamura

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Naoto KawakamiGraduate School of Frontier Biosciences, and.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7300-0296
Satoru KawamuraGraduate School of Frontier Biosciences, and Department of Biological Sciences, Graduate School of Science, Osaka University, Yamada-oka 1-3, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan kawamura@fbs.osaka-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2070-5940
Frontier Science Foundation · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the vertebrate retina, there are two types of photoreceptors, rods and cones. Rods are highly light-sensitive and cones are less light-sensitive. One of the possible mechanisms accounting for the lower light-sensitivity in cones would be lower signal amplification, i.e., lower gain in the phototransduction cascade in cones. In this study, we compared the difference in the gain between rods and cones electrophysiologically in carp. The initial rising phases of the light responses were analyzed to determine an index of the gain, G, a parameter that can be used to compare the gain among cells of varying outer segment volumes. G (in fL · sec(-2)) was 91.2 ± 14.8 (n = 5) in carp rods and 25.3 ± 3.2 (n = 4) in carp red cones, so that the gain in carp red cones is ∼1/4 of that in carp rods. G was also determined in bullfrog rods and was 81.0 ± 17.2 (n = 3) which was very similar to that in carp rods. The difference in the gain between rods and cones in carp determined in this study (∼1/4 in cones compared with rods) is consistent with that we recently determined biochemically (∼1/5 in cones compared with rods). Together with the result obtained in bullfrog rods in this study and the results obtained by others, we concluded that the gain in the cascade is several-fold lower in cones than in rods in carp and probably in other animal species also.

Indexed as

AnimalsCarpsLight Signal TransductionRana catesbeianaRetinal Cone Photoreceptor CellsRetinal Rod Photoreceptor CellsVision, Ocular

Identifiers

PMID25355220
PMCPMC6608423
OpenAlexW1980826123

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.