Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28924257›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2017

Electrodiffusion phenomena in neuroscience: a neglected companion.

Leonid P Savtchenko, Mu Ming Poo, Dmitri A Rusakov

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Impedance Rhythms in Human Limbic System.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  10. In vivo ephaptic coupling allows memory network formation.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Leonid P SavtchenkoUCL Institute of Neurology, University College London, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
Mu Ming PooInstitute of Neuroscience, CAS Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology, State Key Laboratory in Neuroscience, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 320 Yue Yang Road, Shanghai 200031, China.
Dmitri A RusakovUCL Institute of Neurology, University College London, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0600368Medical Research Council G0802216Medical Research Council G0900613Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The emerging technological revolution in genetically encoded molecular sensors and super-resolution imaging provides neuroscientists with a pass to the real-time nano-world. On this small scale, however, classical principles of electrophysiology do not always apply. This is in large part because the nanoscopic heterogeneities in ionic concentrations and the local electric fields associated with individual ions and their movement can no longer be ignored. Here, we review basic principles of molecular electrodiffusion in the cellular environment of organized brain tissue. We argue that accurate interpretation of physiological observations on the nanoscale requires a better understanding of the underlying electrodiffusion phenomena.

Indexed as

AnimalsDiffusionElectrolytesHumansNanotechnologyNeuronsNeurosciencesElectrolytes

Identifiers

PMID28924257

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.