ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Accurate computation of ionic concentrations in the synaptic cleft requires the full Poisson-Nernst-Planck (PNP) equations.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The synaptic cleft between neighboring neurons is the site of neurotransmitter-mediated communication that underlies normal brain function, including learning and memory. When an action potential reaches the presynaptic terminal, released neurotransmitters cross the cleft under the combined influence of diffusion and electrical forces to activate postsynaptic receptors. Despite this, synaptic-cleft transport is commonly modeled using a pure diffusion model, neglecting electrical drift. Here, we quantify the relative contributions of diffusion and electrical terms in the Poisson-Nernst-Planck (PNP) framework and assess whether the pure diffusion approximation is adequate. We solve the full PNP system in a three-dimensional computational model of the synaptic cleft at nanometer-scale resolution, tracking five ionic species (Na+, K+, Ca2+, Cl-, Glu-) with full spatial and temporal detail. Solutions are compared directly with those of the pure diffusion (D) model. The D and PNP models produce markedly different ionic concentration fields. Analysis of ionic fluxes confirms that diffusive and electrical contributions are of comparable magnitude across all species. These discrepancies are robust across parameter variations, including the number of AMPA receptors, the amount of released glutamate, the cleft height, and the cleft diffusion coefficient, and are amplified as the number of AMPA receptors or released glutamate ions increases, when the cleft becomes narrower or when diffusion becomes more restricted. However, because of competing effects, the resulting difference in the associated AMPA current is modest. The quantitative and qualitative differences between the pure D model and the full PNP model demonstrate that neglecting electrical forces in the synaptic cleft has consequences. These discrepancies are large enough to alter the predicted dynamics and biological interpretation of synaptic transmission, establishing that accurate computation of ionic concentrations in the synaptic cleft requires the full PNP equations.
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.