ArticleJournal of computational neuroscience2015
Dissecting estimation of conductances in subthreshold regimes.
Article in Journal of computational neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A computational approach for the inverse problem of neuronal conductances determination.Journal of computational neuroscience · 2020Article
- Determination of effective synaptic conductances using somatic voltage clamp.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
- Estimation of Synaptic Conductances in Presence of Nonlinear Effects Caused by Subthreshold Ionic Currents.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2017Article
- Simultaneous Bayesian Estimation of Excitatory and Inhibitory Synaptic Conductances by Exploiting Multiple Recorded Trials.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We study the influence of subthreshold activity in the estimation of synaptic conductances. It is known that differences between actual conductances and the estimated ones using linear regression methods can be huge in spiking regimes, so caution has been taken to remove spiking activity from experimental data before proceeding to linear estimation. However, not much attention has been paid to the influence of ionic currents active in the non-spiking regime where such linear methods are still profusely used. In this paper, we use conductance-based models to test this influence using several representative mechanisms to induce ionic subthreshold activity. In all the cases, we show that the currents activated during subthreshold activity can lead to significant errors when estimating synaptic conductance linearly. Thus, our results add a new warning message when extracting conductance traces from intracellular recordings and the conclusions concerning neuronal activity that can be drawn from them. Additionally, we present, as a proof of concept, an alternative method that takes into account the main nonlinear effects of specific ionic subthreshold currents. This method, based on the quadratization of the subthreshold dynamics, allows us to reduce the relative errors of the estimated conductances by more than one order of magnitude. In experimental conditions, under appropriate fitting to canonical models, it could be useful to obtain better estimations as well even under the presence of noise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26432075What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.