ArticleNeurophotonics2024
Characterization of two near-infrared genetically encoded voltage indicators.
Article in Neurophotonics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Crosstalk-free optical indicator-actuator combinations for bidirectional optogenetics.npj biomedical innovations · 2026Review
- Noise Sources and Strategies for Signal Quality Improvement in Biological Imaging: A Review Focused on Calcium and Cell Membrane Voltage Imaging.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Seeing the Spikes: The Future of Targetable Synthetic Voltage Sensors.ACS chemical neuroscience · 2025Review
- Updated Toolbox for Assessing Neuronal Network Reconstruction after Cell Therapy.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Significance: Efforts starting more than 20 years ago led to increasingly well performing genetically encoded voltage indicators (GEVIs) for optical imaging at wavelengths Aim: Here, we characterized two recent near-infrared GEVIs, Archon1 and nirButterfly, to support interested tool users in selecting a suitable near-infrared GEVI for their specific research question requirements. Approach: We characterized side-by-side the brightness, sensitivity, and kinetics of both near-infrared GEVIs in a setting focused on population imaging. Results: We found that nirButterfly shows seven-fold higher brightness than Archon1 under the same conditions and faster kinetics than Archon1 for population imaging without cellular resolution. But Archon1 showed larger signals than nirButterfly. Conclusions: Neither GEVI characterized here surpasses in all three key parameters (brightness, kinetics, and sensitivity), so there is no unequivocal preference for one of the two. Our side-by-side characterization presented here provides new information for future
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.