Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29357465›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neurophysiology2018

Modeling sources of interlaboratory variability in electrophysiological properties of mammalian neurons.

Dmitry Tebaykin, Shreejoy J Tripathy, Nathalie Binnion, Brenna Li, Richard C Gerkin, Paul Pavlidis

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Assessing Transcriptome Quality in Patch-Seq Datasets.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2018
    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

6 authors.

Dmitry TebaykinDepartment of Psychiatry and Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia , Vancouver, British Columbia , Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0913-8834
Shreejoy J TripathyDepartment of Psychiatry and Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia , Vancouver, British Columbia , Canada.
Nathalie BinnionDepartment of Psychiatry and Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia , Vancouver, British Columbia , Canada.
Brenna LiDepartment of Psychiatry and Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia , Vancouver, British Columbia , Canada.
Richard C GerkinSchool of Life Sciences, Arizona State University , Tempe, Arizona.ORCID 0000-0002-2940-3378
Paul PavlidisDepartment of Psychiatry and Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia , Vancouver, British Columbia , Canada.

Funding

Neuroinformatics for gene expression: networks, function and meta-analysisR01MH111099 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA · PI PAVLIDIS, PAUL · 2016 to 2025
$3.6M
Neuroinformatics for gene expression: networks, function and meta-analysisR01GM076990 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA · PI BIROL, INANC, PAVLIDIS, PAUL · 2005 to 2014
$2.0M
CIHRNIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM076990NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH111099
6 · The paper itself

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

Models, TheoreticalAnimalsElectrophysiological PhenomenaMammalsNeuronsNeurophysiologyPatch-Clamp Techniqueschemical solutionscomputational modelingelectrophysiologyexperimental conditionsintrinsic physiology: meta-analysismetadatapatch clamp

Identifiers

PMID29357465
PMCPMC5966732

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.