Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33074301›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of general physiology2020

Spike frequency-dependent inhibition and excitation of neural activity by high-frequency ultrasound.

Martin Loynaz Prieto, Kamyar Firouzi, Butrus T Khuri-Yakub, Daniel V Madison, Merritt Maduke

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of general physiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Martin Loynaz PrietoDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Kamyar FirouziE.L. Ginzton Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Butrus T Khuri-YakubE.L. Ginzton Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Daniel V MadisonDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Merritt MadukeDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Stanford University · US

Funding

Neurostimulation by Ultrasound: Physical, Biophysical, and Neural MechanismsR01NS112152 · NINDS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BACCUS, STEPHEN A, BUTTS-PAULY, KIM · 2020 to 2024
$4.9M
Neurostimulation by Ultrasound: Physical, Biophysical and Neural MechanismsR01EB019005 · NIBIB · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BACCUS, STEPHEN A, BUTTS-PAULY, KIM · 2014 to 2017
$2.8M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB019005NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS112152
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ultrasound can modulate action potential firing in vivo and in vitro, but the mechanistic basis of this phenomenon is not well understood. To address this problem, we used patch-clamp recording to quantify the effects of focused, high-frequency (43 MHz) ultrasound on evoked action potential firing in CA1 pyramidal neurons in acute rodent hippocampal brain slices. We find that ultrasound can either inhibit or potentiate firing in a spike frequency-dependent manner: at low (near-threshold) input currents and low firing frequencies, ultrasound inhibits firing, while at higher input currents and higher firing frequencies, ultrasound potentiates firing. The net result of these two competing effects is that ultrasound increases the threshold current for action potential firing, the slope of frequency-input curves, and the maximum firing frequency. In addition, ultrasound slightly hyperpolarizes the resting membrane potential, decreases action potential width, and increases the depth of the after-hyperpolarization. All of these results can be explained by the hypothesis that ultrasound activates a sustained potassium conductance. According to this hypothesis, increased outward potassium currents hyperpolarize the resting membrane potential and inhibit firing at near-threshold input currents but potentiate firing in response to higher-input currents by limiting inactivation of voltage-dependent sodium channels during the action potential. This latter effect is a consequence of faster action potential repolarization, which limits inactivation of voltage-dependent sodium channels, and deeper (more negative) after-hyperpolarization, which increases the rate of recovery from inactivation. Based on these results, we propose that ultrasound activates thermosensitive and mechanosensitive two-pore-domain potassium (K2P) channels through heating or mechanical effects of acoustic radiation force. Finite-element modeling of the effects of ultrasound on brain tissue suggests that the effects of ultrasound on firing frequency are caused by a small (<2°C) increase in temperature, with possible additional contributions from mechanical effects.

Indexed as

Action PotentialsMembrane PotentialsPyramidal CellsAnimalsCA1 Region, HippocampalIn Vitro TechniquesPatch-Clamp TechniquesRodentiaUltrasonics

Identifiers

PMID33074301
PMCPMC7534904
OpenAlexW3092091802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.