ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2023
A Simplified Model of Activation and Deactivation of Human Rod Phototransduction-An Electroretinographic Study.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To test the hypothesis that a simple model having properties consistent with activation and deactivation in the rod approximates the whole time course of the photoresponse. Methods: Routinely, an exponential of the form f = α·(1 - exp(-(τ·(t - teff)s-1))), with amplitude α, rate constant τ (often scaled by intensity), irreducible delay teff, and time exponent s-1, is fit to the early period of the flash electroretinogram. Notably, s (an integer) represents the three integrating stages in the rod amplification cascade (rhodopsin isomerization, transducin activation, and cGMP hydrolysis). The time course of the photoresponse to a 0.17 cd·s·m-2 conditioning flash (CF) was determined in 21 healthy eyes by presenting the CF plus a bright probe flash (PF) in tandem, separated by interstimulus intervals (ISIs) of 0.01 to 1.4 seconds, and calculating the proportion of the PF a-wave suppressed by the CF at each ISI. To test if similar kinetics describe deactivation, difference of exponential (DoE) functions with common α and teff parameters, respective rate constants for the initiation (I) and quenching (Q) phases of the response, and specified values of s (sI, sQ), were compared to the photoresponse time course. Results: As hypothesized, the optimal values of sI and sQ were 3 and 2, respectively. Mean ± SD α was 0.80 ± 0.066, I was 7700 ± 2400 m2·cd-1·s-3, and Q was 1.4 ± 0.47 s-1. Overall, r2 was 0.93. Conclusions: A method, including a DoE model with just three free parameters (α, I, Q), that robustly captures the magnitude and time-constants of the complete rod response, was produced. Only two steps integrate to quench the rod photoresponse.
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.