ArticleThe Journal of physiology1996
A slowly activating voltage-dependent K+ current in rat pituitary nerve terminals.
Article in The Journal of physiology, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Slow conductances could underlie intrinsic phase-maintaining properties of isolated lobster (Panulirus interruptus) pyloric neurons.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2009Article
- Voltage-dependent membrane capacitance in rat pituitary nerve terminals due to gating currents.Biophysical journal · 2001Article
- Mode switching characterizes the activity of large conductance potassium channels recorded from rat cortical fused nerve terminals.The Journal of physiology · 1998Article
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
1. A novel slowly activating voltage-dependent K+ current was observed in isolated nerve terminals from rat neurohypophysis using the whole-cell configuration of the patch-clamp technique. 2. The activation kinetics of the slow current could be fitted assuming Hodgkin--Huxley-type kinetics, an exponential, n, of 1.3 and activation time constants decreasing from 4 s at -50 mV to 0.7s at +40 mV. 3. A positive shift of reversal potential was observed when [K+] was increased in the bath solution. The current is carried mainly but not exclusively by K+ ions. 4. When intracellular free [Mg2+] was low (approximately 60 microM), average current density was 74 pA pF-1 at membrane potentials around 0 mV. In 83% of nerve terminals current amplitude was > 10 pA pF-1. 5. The slow current was never observed when the pipette contained 4.6 mM free Mg2+. At a physiological level of free Mg2+ (0.5 mM) the average current density was 16 pA pF-1. 6. When nerve terminals were analysed after patch-clamp experiments for vasopressin content by immunodetection, no difference in current amplitude was found between the terminals containing vasopressin and all analysed terminals. 7. The voltage dependence of activation was fitted by a Boltzmann equation giving a half-activation potential of -37 mV and a slope factor of about 9 mV. 8. Tail current deactivation kinetics was biexponential with time constants of 0.12 and 1.5s. Kinetics was dependent on the duration of the activating pulse. 9. Noise analysis of the slow current indicated a single-channel current of 0.33 pA at +6 mV, corresponding to a single-channel conductance of 4.3 pS. 10. This is the first demonstration of a current similar to the slow K+ current, IKs, in a neurone, suggesting that a protein similar to the IKs-inducing channel protein IsK (minK) may be present in peptidergic nerve terminals. 11. The activation properties are consistent with a role of the slow current in inhibition of excitability, at least at the level of the nerve terminal.
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.