SynthesisJournal of neurophysiology2018
Modeling sources of interlaboratory variability in electrophysiological properties of mammalian neurons.
Synthesis in Journal of neurophysiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficient, Automatic, and Reproducible Patch Clamp Data Analysis with "Auto ANT", a User-Friendly Interface for Batch Analysis of Patch Clamp Recordings.Neuroinformatics · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- A comprehensive knowledge base of synaptic electrophysiology in the rodent hippocampal formation.Hippocampus · 2020Article
- Interferon-Gamma Stimulated Murine MacrophagesBioelectricity · 2020Article
- Defined extracellular ionic solutions to study and manipulate the cellular resting membrane potential.Biology open · 2020Article
- Quantitative firing pattern phenotyping of hippocampal neuron types.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Classification of electrophysiological and morphological neuron types in the mouse visual cortex.Nature neuroscience · 2019Article
- odMLtables: A User-Friendly Approach for Managing Metadata of Neurophysiological Experiments.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2019Article
- Quantifying How Staining Methods Bias Measurements of Neuron Morphologies.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2019Article
- Assessing Transcriptome Quality in Patch-Seq Datasets.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patch-clamp electrophysiology is widely used to characterize neuronal electrical phenotypes. However, there are no standard experimental conditions for in vitro whole cell patch-clamp electrophysiology, complicating direct comparisons between data sets. In this study, we sought to understand how basic experimental conditions differ among laboratories and how these differences might impact measurements of electrophysiological parameters. We curated the compositions of external bath solutions (artificial cerebrospinal fluid), internal pipette solutions, and other methodological details such as animal strain and age from 509 published neurophysiology articles studying rodent neurons. We found that very few articles used the exact same experimental solutions as any other, and some solution differences stem from recipe inheritance from advisor to advisee as well as changing trends over the years. Next, we used statistical models to understand how the use of different experimental conditions impacts downstream electrophysiological measurements such as resting potential and action potential width. Although these experimental condition features could explain up to 43% of the study-to-study variance in electrophysiological parameters, the majority of the variability was left unexplained. Our results suggest that there are likely additional experimental factors that contribute to cross-laboratory electrophysiological variability, and identifying and addressing these will be important to future efforts to assemble consensus descriptions of neurophysiological phenotypes for mammalian cell types. NEW & NOTEWORTHY This article describes how using different experimental methods during patch-clamp electrophysiology impacts downstream physiological measurements. We characterized how methodologies and experimental solutions differ across articles. We found that differences in methods can explain some, but not all, of the study-to-study variance in electrophysiological measurements. Explicitly accounting for methodological differences using statistical models can help correct downstream electrophysiological measurements for cross-laboratory methodology differences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.