Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7714890›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of membrane biology1995

Estimating and eliminating junctional current in coupled cell populations by leak subtraction. A computational study.

A Sherman, L Xu, C L Stokes

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of membrane biology, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A ShermanNational Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
L Xu
C L Stokes
University of Houston · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The quantitative characterization of ion channel properties in pancreatic beta-cells under typical patch clamp conditions can be questioned because of the unreconciled differences in experimental conditions and observed behavior between microelectrode recordings of membrane potential in intact islets of Langerhans and patch recordings of single cells. Complex bursting is reliably observed in islets but not in isolated cells under patch clamp conditions. E. Rojas et al. (J. Membrane Biol. 143:65-77, 1995) have attempted to circumvent these incompatibilities by measuring currents in beta-cells in intact islets by voltage-clamping with intracellular microelectrodes (150-250 M omega tip resistance). The major potential pitfall is that beta-cells within the islet are electrically coupled, and contaminating coupling currents must be subtracted from current measurements, just as linear leak currents are typically subtracted. To characterize the conditions under which such coupling current subtraction is valid, we have conducted a computational study of a model islet. Assuming that the impaled cell is well clamped, we calculate the native and coupling components of the observed current. Our simulations illustrate that coupling can be reliably subtracted when neighbor cells' potentials are constant or vary only slowly (e.g., during their silent phases) but not when they vary rapidly (e.g., during their active phases). We also show how to estimate coupling conductances in the intact islet from measurements of coupling currents.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell CommunicationComputer SimulationIntercellular JunctionsIslets of LangerhansMembrane PotentialsMiceMicroelectrodesModels, BiologicalPatch-Clamp Techniques

Identifiers

PMID7714890
OpenAlexW2078627816

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.