ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Beyond Membrane Potential: Exploiting Signal Complexity in Genetically Encoded Voltage Indicators.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetically encoded voltage indicators (GEVIs) have long promised optical access to membrane potential, yet their adoption has lagged significantly behind genetically encoded calcium indicators. A central but underappreciated reason is that the metrics used to evaluate and compare GEVIs-fractional fluorescence change (ΔF/F), kinetics, and signal-to-noise ratio-rest on an assumption that is frequently violated: that GEVI fluorescence reflects a single underlying process. In this perspective, we argue that GEVI signals are composite optical measurements, arising from the superposition of voltage-dependent fluorescence, intracellular and nonresponsive signal, background, and contributions from neighboring cells. Under these conditions, ΔF/F is not a measure of sensor sensitivity but a contrast metric whose value depends on baseline fluorescence composition, optical sampling, and imaging configuration. This reinterpretation has two key consequences. First, it explains a substantial source of variability in GEVI performance that is currently attributed to noise or experimental inconsistency. Second, and more importantly, it reveals that the complexity of GEVI signals is not a limitation to be minimized but a resource to be exploited. By resolving composite signal components, GEVIs can report multiplexed physiological variables, expose hidden conformational states of voltage-sensing domains, probe membrane organization, and reveal intracellular and intercellular electrical coupling. We propose that realizing the full potential of GEVIs requires treating ΔF/F not as a gold standard for sensor performance, but as one interpretable component of a richer optical measurement whose structure encodes multiple layers of cellular physiology.
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.