Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27218707›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of physiology2016

Why are rods more sensitive than cones?

Norianne T Ingram, Alapakkam P Sampath, Gordon L Fain

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of physiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

78 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. E122Q rhodopsin: pigment microspectrophotometry, photoreceptor light responses, and bleaching adaptation.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. The Role of the CaThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Dark continuous noise from visual pigment as a major mechanism underlying rod-cone difference in light sensitivity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Ancient origin of the rod bipolar cell pathway in the vertebrate retina.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  20. Article

18 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.

Norianne T IngramDepartment of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-7239, USA.
Alapakkam P SampathDepartment of Ophthalmology and Jules Stein Eye Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-7000, USA.
Gordon L FainDepartment of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-7239, USA. gfain@ucla.edu.

Funding

Vision Research Core at UCLAP30EY000331 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Xian-Jie Yang · 1985 to 2026
$16.8M
PHYSIOLOGY OF PHOTORECEPTORSR01EY001844 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI GORDON Lee FAIN · 1985 to 2026
$9.9M
Training in Molecular, Cellular &Integrative PhysiologyT32GM065823 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI TIDBALL, JAMES G · 2003 to 2017
$2.1M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY000331NEI NIH HHS R01 EY001844NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM065823
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One hundred and fifty years ago Max Schultze first proposed the duplex theory of vision, that vertebrate eyes have two types of photoreceptor cells with differing sensitivity: rods for dim light and cones for bright light and colour detection. We now know that this division is fundamental not only to the photoreceptors themselves but to the whole of retinal and visual processing. But why are rods more sensitive, and how did the duplex retina first evolve? Cells resembling cones are very old, first appearing among cnidarians; the emergence of rods was a key step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye. Many transduction proteins have different isoforms in rods and cones, and others are expressed at different levels. Moreover rods and cones have a different anatomy, with only rods containing membranous discs enclosed by the plasma membrane. These differences must be responsible for the difference in absolute sensitivity, but which are essential? Recent research particularly expressing cone proteins in rods or changing the level of expression seem to show that many of the molecular differences in the activation and decay of the response may have each made a small contribution as evolution proceeded stepwise with incremental increases in sensitivity. Rod outer-segment discs were not essential and developed after single-photon detection. These experiments collectively provide a new understanding of the two kinds of photoreceptors and help to explain how gene duplication and the formation of rod-specific proteins produced the duplex retina, which has remained remarkably constant in physiology from amphibians to man.

Indexed as

AnimalsProtein IsoformsRetinal Cone Photoreceptor CellsRetinal Rod Photoreceptor CellsVision, OcularProtein Isoformsconesphotoreceptorrhodopsinrodsvision

Identifiers

PMID27218707
PMCPMC5043029

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.