Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8386335›Full record

ArticleNeurochemical research1993

Methods for removing endogenous factors from CNS membrane preparations: differences in [3H]GABA binding parameters and developmental-related effects.

S Fiszer de Plazas, M C Gravielle, A Mitridate de Novara, V Flores

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurochemical research, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 51% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S Fiszer de PlazasInstituto de Biología Celular, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
M C Gravielle
A Mitridate de Novara
V Flores
University of Buenos Aires · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present report describes a systematic study comparing and combining methods currently used for the removal of endogenous factors known to affect the interaction of GABA with its receptor. The effects of these methods were analyzed by performing [3H]GABA binding studies, and by measuring the amount of residual GABA left in the different membrane preparations. The effectiveness of these methods were also applied to different developmental stages. The results show that: 1) an exhaustive buffer washing procedure is necessary to accurately measure the maximal binding capacity (Bmax) of the low-affinity GABA binding site, and 2) the use of more drastic methods, including freeze-thawing and Triton treatment allows a clear demonstration of receptor heterogeneity and a precise measurement of the Bmax of the high-affinity GABA binding site as well as increases the affinity of the low-affinity site. The analysis of the Bmax values obtained with these different procedures in relation to the values of GABA removal, strongly indicates that the exhaustive washing procedure removes some unknown endogenous substances required for Triton treatment to exhibit its maximal effectiveness. Finally, a detailed analysis of Kd and Bmax values obtained with these three methods in the developing nervous tissue shows the existence of significant differences with regard to their effectiveness in removing endogenous substances when applied in different developmental stages.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell MembraneChick EmbryoChromatography, High Pressure LiquidFreezinggamma-Aminobutyric AcidOctoxynolOptic Lobe, NonmammalianPolyethylene GlycolsReceptors, GABA-ATime Factorsgamma-Aminobutyric AcidOctoxynolPolyethylene GlycolsReceptors, GABA-A

Identifiers

PMID8386335
OpenAlexW2076478304

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.