Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 303

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Physiological Features of the S- and M-cone Photoreceptors of Wild-type Mice from Single-cell Recordings

Open access
Nikonov, Sergei S., Kholodenko, Roman, Lem, Janis, Pugh, Edward N.·2006·The Journal of General Physiology

Abstract

Cone cells constitute only 3% of the photoreceptors of the wild-type (WT) mouse. While mouse rods have been thoroughly investigated with suction pipette recordings of their outer segment membrane currents, to date no recordings from WT cones have been published, likely because of the rarity of cones and the fragility of their outer segments. Recently, we characterized the photoreceptors of Nrl−/− mice, using suction pipette recordings from their “inner segments” (perinuclear region), and found them to be cones. Here we report the use of this same method to record for the first time the responses of single cones of WT mice, and of mice lacking the α-subunit of the G-protein transducin (Gtα−/−), a loss that renders them functionally rodless. Most cones were found to functionally co-express both S- (λmax = 360 nm) and M- (λmax = 508 nm) cone opsins and to be maximally sensitive at 360 nm (“S-cones”); nonetheless, all cones from the dorsal retina were found to be maximally sensitive at 508 nm (“M-cones”). The dim-flash response kinetics and absolute sensitivity of S- and M-cones were very similar and not dependent on which of the coexpressed cone opsins drove transduction; the time to peak of the dim-flash response was ∼70 ms, and ∼0.2% of the circulating current was suppressed per photoisomerization. Amplification in WT cones (A ∼4 s−2) was found to be about twofold lower than in rods (A ∼8 s−2). Mouse M-cones maintained their circulating current at very nearly the dark adapted level even when >90% of their M-opsin was bleached. S-cones were less tolerant to bleached S-opsin than M-cones to bleached M-opsin, but still far more tolerant than mouse rods to bleached rhodopsin, which exhibit persistent suppression of nearly 50% of their circulating current following a 20% bleach. Thus, the three types of mouse opsin appear distinctive in the degree to which their bleached, unregenerated opsins generate “dark light.”

Overview

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 · 10.1085/jgp.200609490

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 303

Metadata

Authors
Nikonov, S. S., Kholodenko, R., Lem, J., & Pugh, E. N.
Venue
The Journal of General Physiology
Published
2006-03-27
Volume
127
Issue
4
Pages
359-374
ISSN
  • 0022-1295 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-7748
OpenAlex
W2115734536
Cited by
303
References
3
FWCI
4.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Physiological Features of the S- and M-cone Photoreceptors of Wild-type Mice from Single-cell Recordings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1085/jgp.200609490
The paper
Nikonov, S. S., Kholodenko, R., Lem, J., & Pugh, E. N. (2006). Physiological Features of the S- and M-cone Photoreceptors of Wild-type Mice from Single-cell Recordings. The Journal of General Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.200609490

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.