ArticleBiophysical journal2026
Second harmonic imaging of membrane potentials: Comparing water and chromophores as probes.
Article in Biophysical journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The electrostatic potential of lipid membranes is an important metric to gain insight into the physiological state of cells. Second harmonic (SH) imaging has emerged as a powerful tool to perform in situ and in vivo electrostatic potential measurements, either using targeted probes or label-free by using water as a probe. In this work, we compare both modalities, by performing SH imaging on freestanding lipid membranes in aqueous solutions. Correlating the SH intensity to an applied external potential bias, the resonant voltage probe and the water response display distinctly different responses, which can be traced back to different nonlinear optical mechanisms. These mechanisms ensure that the water imaging provides a clean readout of the transmembrane potential, while the chromophore emission reports on the surface potential in the leaflet where it resides, together with differences in chromophore density, structure, and tilt angles. This means that, while both methods may show similar results, they cannot be compared directly. A combination of both methods is suggested as a useful strategy as the water response is accurate but currently limited to sub-second temporal resolution, while the resonant probe permits a sub-millisecond temporal resolution but is hampered by convoluted structural effects and chemical modification.
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.