ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Coordination of spike timing among the neurons of the cerebellum.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We tend to think of neurons as either excitatory or inhibitory, but certain neurons chemically inhibit their downstream targets while electrically exciting their neighbors. For example, in the cerebellum, molecular layer interneurons (MLIs) inhibit Purkinje cells (P-cells) via release of GABA but promote spiking in each other via gap junctions. What is gained by having an inhibitory neuron excite its neighbor? Here, we recorded activities of P-cells and MLIs as marmosets performed saccadic eye movements and found that spike timing in pairs of neighboring neurons of the same type exhibited a mathematical regularity: as firing rates increased, rate of spikes that were within 1ms of each other grew disproportionately while 2-4ms intervals were suppressed. To uncover the purpose of this coordination, during saccades we recorded thousands of neuron triplets in which two MLIs converged onto a single target P-cell. When the MLIs spiked within 1ms of each other, they produced superposition of their individual effects on their target; a deep inhibition followed by a post-inhibitory rebound. However, when the MLIs spiked 2-4ms apart, the two spikes interfered with each other, producing partial cancellation. Thus, electrical coupling between inhibitory neurons orchestrated their spike timing so that as firing rates increased, the temporal intervals that induced downstream superposition were promoted while the intervals that caused interference were suppressed.
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.