↓ Skip to main content

Muscarinic and Nicotinic ACh Receptor Activation Differentially Mobilize Ca2+ in Rat Intracardiac Ganglion Neurons

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurophysiology, May 2003
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Muscarinic and Nicotinic ACh Receptor Activation Differentially Mobilize Ca2+ in Rat Intracardiac Ganglion Neurons
Published in
Journal of Neurophysiology, May 2003
DOI 10.1152/jn.01079.2002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Friederike Beker, Martin Weber, Rainer H. A. Fink, David J. Adams

Abstract

The origin of intracellular Ca2+ concentration ([Ca2+]i) transients stimulated by nicotinic (nAChR) and muscarinic (mAChR) receptor activation was investigated in fura-2-loaded neonatal rat intracardiac neurons. ACh evoked [Ca2+]i increases that were reduced to approximately 60% of control in the presence of either atropine (1 microM) or mecamylamine (3 microM) and to <20% in the presence of both antagonists. Removal of external Ca2+ reduced ACh-induced responses to 58% of control, which was unchanged in the presence of mecamylamine but reduced to 5% of control by atropine. The nAChR-induced [Ca2+]i response was reduced to 50% by 10 microM ryanodine, whereas the mAChR-induced response was unaffected by ryanodine, suggesting that Ca2+ release from ryanodine-sensitive Ca2+ stores may only contribute to the nAChR-induced [Ca2+]i responses. Perforated-patch whole cell recording at -60 mV shows that the rise in [Ca2+]i is concomitant with slow outward currents on mAChR activation and with rapid inward currents after nAChR activation. In conclusion, different signaling pathways mediate the rise in [Ca2+]i and membrane currents evoked by ACh binding to nicotinic and muscarinic receptors in rat intracardiac neurons.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 28%
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 14%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 8 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 December 2023.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurophysiology
#2,580
of 8,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,563
of 54,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurophysiology
#17
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,423 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 54,068 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.