Cited by 780Photoreceptor and optogenetics researchAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy TechniquesNeuroscience and Neural Engineering

Principles for applying optogenetic tools derived from direct comparative analysis of microbial opsins

Open access
Mattis, Joanna, Tye, Kay M, Ferenczi, Emily A, Ramakrishnan, Charu, O'Shea, Daniel J, Prakash, Rohit, Gunaydin, Lisa A, Hyun, Minsuk +4 more·2012·Nature Methods

Abstract

Diverse optogenetic tools have allowed versatile control over neural activity. Many depolarizing and hyperpolarizing tools have now been developed in multiple laboratories and tested across different preparations, presenting opportunities but also making it difficult to draw direct comparisons. This challenge has been compounded by the dependence of performance on parameters such as vector, promoter, expression time, illumination, cell type and many other variables. As a result, it has become increasingly complicated for end users to select the optimal reagents for their experimental needs. For a rapidly growing field, critical figures of merit should be formalized both to establish a framework for further development and so that end users can readily understand how these standardized parameters translate into performance. Here we systematically compared microbial opsins under matched experimental conditions to extract essential principles and identify key parameters for the conduct, design and interpretation of experiments involving optogenetic techniques.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nmeth.1808

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Conventionally used AAV backbones with a 1.3 kb CaMKIIα promoter, WPRE, and human growth hormone polyadenylation signal have a capacity of 2.4 kb.

    “Conventionally used AAV backbones which include a commonly used neuronal expression cassette composed of 1.3 kb CaMKIIα promoter (which shows comparable expression efficiency with 0.4 kb CaMKIIα promoter [10] used in CWB), WPRE, and human growth hormone polyadenylation signal [23-25] has a capacity of 2.4 kb.”

    From Optimization of AAV expression cassettes to improve packaging capacity and transgene expression in neurons (2014) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Results section (‘Inhibiting spikes in pyramidal cells in acute slice’; page not provided) describes an AAV construct controlled by a CaMKIIα promoter. Online Methods (‘Molecular cloning’; page not provided) mentions WPRE, but for lentiviral constructs. Our copy does not give a 1.3 kb promoter length, identify a human growth hormone polyadenylation signal in that AAV backbone, or state a 2.4 kb capacity. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mattis, J., Tye, K. M., Ferenczi, E. A., Ramakrishnan, C., O'Shea, D. J., Prakash, R., Gunaydin, L. A., Hyun, M., Fenno, L. E., Gradinaru, V., Yizhar, O., & Deisseroth, K.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Deisseroth, Karl
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2011-12-18
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
159-172
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W1969650326
Cited by
780
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 65 · 2014: 71 · 2013: 75 · 2012: 23
FWCI
22.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • W. M. Keck Foundation
  • McKnight Foundation
  • Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • National Institute of Mental Health (F32MH088010)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (DP2DK102256)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Photoreceptor and optogenetics research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Advanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
Keywords
optogenetics, microbial opsins, figure of merit, light-gated ion channels
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Kinetics, Light, Pyramidal Cells, Opsins

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review