ArticleScientific reports2024
Effects of angle of incidence of stimulus light on photopic electroretinograms of zebrafish larvae.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In electroretinographic (ERG) recordings of zebrafish, the light stimulus is usually delivered by a fiber optic cable. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the angle of incidence of the stimulus light from the fiber optic cable will affect the amplitudes and implicit times of the ERGs of zebrafish larvae. The larvae were positioned on their side with the right eye pointed upward. The light stimuli were delivered by a fiber optic cable from three directions of the larvae: frontal 0° (F0°), dorsal 30°(D30°), and ventral 30°(V30°). Photopic ERGs were recorded from 16 larvae at age 5-6 days post-fertilization. Our results showed that the mean amplitude of the b-wave elicited at D30° and V30° stimulation was significantly smaller than that elicited at F0° stimulation (P = 0.014 and P = 0.019, respectively). In addition, the mean amplitude of the d-wave elicited at D30° and V30° stimulation was significantly smaller than that elicited at F0° stimulation (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.015, respectively). However, the difference between the b-wave amplitudes elicited at D30° and V30° stimuli were not significant (P = 0.98), and the d-wave amplitudes were also not significantly different (P = 0.20). The average b-wave amplitudes elicited at D30° stimulation was 84.6 ± 15.7% and V30° stimulation was 84.8 ± 17.4% relative to that of F0° stimulation. The average d-wave amplitudes elicited by D30° stimulation was 85.5 ± 15.2% and by V30° stimulation was 79.0 ± 11.0% relative to that of F0° stimulation. The differences in the implicit times of the b- and d-wave elicited by the different directions of stimulation were not significant (P = 0.52 and P = 0.14, respectively). We conclude that the amplitude of the photopic ERGs is affected by the angle of the incident light. Thus, it would be better to use ganzfeld stimuli to elicit maximum b- and d-wave amplitudes of the photopic ERGs of zebrafish larvae.
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.