ArticleScientific reports2024
Combined-electrical optogenetic stimulation but not channelrhodopsin kinetics improves the fidelity of high rate stimulation in the auditory pathway in mice.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Novel stimulation methods are needed to overcome the limitations of contemporary cochlear implants. Optogenetics is a technique that confers light sensitivity to neurons via the genetic introduction of light-sensitive ion channels. By controlling neural activity with light, auditory neurons can be activated with higher spatial precision. Understanding the behaviour of opsins at high stimulation rates is an important step towards their translation. To elucidate this, we compared the temporal characteristics of auditory nerve and inferior colliculus responses to optogenetic, electrical, and combined optogenetic-electrical stimulation in virally transduced mice expressing one of two channelrhodopsins, ChR2-H134R or ChIEF, at stimulation rates up to 400 pulses per second (pps). At 100 pps, optogenetic responses in ChIEF mice demonstrated higher fidelity, less change in latency, and greater response stability compared to responses in ChR2-H134R mice, but not at higher rates. Combined stimulation improved the response characteristics in both cohorts at 400 pps, although there was no consistent facilitation of electrical responses. Despite these results, day-long stimulation (up to 13 h) led to severe and non-recoverable deterioration of the optogenetic responses. The results of this study have significant implications for the translation of optogenetic-only and combined stimulation techniques for hearing loss.
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.