↓ Skip to main content

How to Properly Measure a Current-Voltage Relation?—Interpolation vs. Ramp Methods Applied to Studies of GABAA Receptors

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
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
How to Properly Measure a Current-Voltage Relation?—Interpolation vs. Ramp Methods Applied to Studies of GABAA Receptors
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fncel.2016.00010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tushar D. Yelhekar, Michael Druzin, Urban Karlsson, Erii Blomqvist, Staffan Johansson

Abstract

The relation between current and voltage, I-V relation, is central to functional analysis of membrane ion channels. A commonly used method, since the introduction of the voltage-clamp technique, to establish the I-V relation depends on the interpolation of current amplitudes recorded at different steady voltages. By a theoretical computational approach as well as by experimental recordings from GABAA-receptor mediated currents in mammalian central neurons, we here show that this interpolation method may give reversal potentials and conductances that do not reflect the properties of the channels studied under conditions when ion flux may give rise to concentration changes. Therefore, changes in ion concentrations may remain undetected and conclusions on changes in conductance, such as during desensitization, may be mistaken. In contrast, an alternative experimental approach, using rapid voltage ramps, enable I-V relations that much better reflect the properties of the studied ion channels.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 68 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 27%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 27 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,246,461
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#2,204
of 4,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,284
of 397,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#48
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,251 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 397,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.