ArticleThe Journal of general physiology1993
Effects of sulfhydryl inhibitors on nonlinear membrane currents in frog skeletal muscle fibers.
Article in The Journal of general physiology, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of reducing agents and oxidants on excitation-contraction coupling in skeletal muscle fibres of rat and toad.The Journal of physiology · 1996Article
- Chemical modification of squid axon K+ channel -SH groups with the organic mercurial compound p-hydroxymercuriphenylsulfonic acid (PHMPS).Pflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology · 1994Article
- N-Ethylmaleimide Stimulates and Inhibits Ion Transport in Vestibular Dark Cells of Gerbil.Auditory neuroscience · 1994Article
- Effects of sulfhydryl inhibitors on depolarizations-contraction coupling in frog skeletal muscle fibers.The Journal of general physiology · 1993Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effect of sulhydryl reagents on nonlinear membrane currents of frog skeletal muscle fibers has been studied using the triple Vaseline gap voltage-clamp technique. These compounds, which are known to interfere with depolarization contraction coupling, also appear to diminish intramembranous charge movement recorded with fibers polarized to -100 mV (charge 1). This effect, however, is accompanied by changes in the fiber membrane conductance and in most cases by the appearance of an inwardly directed current in the potential range between -60 and +20 mV. This current is reduced by both cadmium and nifedipine and does not occur in Ca-free solution, suggesting that it is carried by calcium ions flowing through regular calcium channels that are more easily activated in the presence of SH reagent. These changes in the membrane electrical active and passive properties decrease the quality and reliability of the P/n pulse subtracting procedure normally used for charge movement measurements. These effects can be substantially reduced by cadmium ions (0.1 mM), which has no effect on charge movement. When SH reagents are applied in the presence of cadmium, no effects are observed, indicating that this cation may protect the membrane from the reagent effects. The effects of -SH reagents can be observed by applying them in the absence of cadmium, followed by addition of the cation. Under these conditions the conductance changes are reversed and the effects of the SH reagents on charge movement can be measured with a higher degree of confidence. Maximum charge is reduced by 32% in the presence of 1.5 mM PCMB and by 31% in the presence of 2 mM PHMPS. These effects do not occur in the presence of DTT and in some cases they may be reversed by this agent. Charge 2, recorded in depolarized muscle fibers, is also reduced by these agents.
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.