Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7539128›Full record

ArticlePflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology1995

Improved micro-perfusion chamber for multiple and rapid solution exchange in adherent single cells.

A Savchenko, H Glossmann, S Hering

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

A SavchenkoInstitut für Biochemische Pharmakologie, Innsbruck, Austria.
H Glossmann
S Hering

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A new method for fast perfusion of single adherent cells during whole-cell and single-channel patch-clamp measurements is described. The main advantages over previous methods are: (1) the solution surrounding a single cell in a Petri dish (or cover slip) can be exchanged without contamination of the entire cell population, and (2) only small quantities of test solution (50 microliters) are required. The method consists of inserting a patch pipette into a micro-perfusion chamber (MPC) where whole-cell and single-channel currents can be studied. A small volume (2-3 microliters) surrounding adherent single cells in a Petri dish is separated by enclosing it in a ring of Silicone rubber which is then pressed to the bottom of the dish. A drug-containing test solution (50 microliters) is supplied to a funnel at the chamber inflow. The MPC volume isolated from the main solution in the Petri dish is rapidly changed when suction is applied to the chamber outflow. The speed of solution exchange in the MPC (16 +/- 5 ms, n = 12) was estimated by observing changes in the tip potential of 1-M omega patch pipettes during rapid chamber perfusion with solutions of different ionic composition. The seal of the MPC with the surface of a Petri dish was approximated by measuring the electrical resistance between the MPC interior and a reference electrode placed in the Petri dish outside the MPC (range 300-500 M omega). Additionally, a radioactive calcium channel ligand [3H]isradipine was added to the MPC and the appearance of radioactivity in the Petri dish (outside the MPC) subsequently measured.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Indexed as

Amplifiers, ElectronicAnimalsCalcium Channel BlockersCell AdhesionCell LineIon ChannelsIsradipineMicroscopy, Phase-ContrastMuscle, Smooth, VascularPatch-Clamp TechniquesPerfusionRatsSolutionsCalcium Channel BlockersIon ChannelsIsradipineSolutions

Identifiers

PMID7539128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.