Response to comment "Transient complexes between dark rhodopsin and transducin: circumstantial evidence or physiological necessity?" by D. Dell'Orco and K.-W. Koch.

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.

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.

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A hybrid stochastic/deterministic model of single photon response and light adaptation in mouse rods.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021
   Article
2. Characterization of Zebrafish Green Cone Photoresponse Recorded with Pressure-Polished Patch Pipettes, Yielding Efficient Intracellular Dialysis.PloS one · 2015
   Article
3. Protein and Signaling Networks in Vertebrate Photoreceptor Cells.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2015
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Explicit spatiotemporal simulation of receptor-G protein coupling in rod cell disk membranes.2014
• Comment on
  Transient complexes between dark rhodopsin and transducin: circumstantial evidence or physiological necessity?2015

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as