Cited by 15Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchIon channel regulation and functionNeural dynamics and brain function

Modeling sources of interlaboratory variability in electrophysiological properties of mammalian neurons

Open access
Tebaykin, Dmitry, Tripathy, Shreejoy J., Binnion, Nathalie, Li, Brenna, Gerkin, Richard C., Pavlidis, Paul·2018·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

Patch-clamp electrophysiology is widely used to characterize neuronal electrical phenotypes. However, there are no standard experimental conditions for in vitro whole cell patch-clamp electrophysiology, complicating direct comparisons between data sets. In this study, we sought to understand how basic experimental conditions differ among laboratories and how these differences might impact measurements of electrophysiological parameters. We curated the compositions of external bath solutions (artificial cerebrospinal fluid), internal pipette solutions, and other methodological details such as animal strain and age from 509 published neurophysiology articles studying rodent neurons. We found that very few articles used the exact same experimental solutions as any other, and some solution differences stem from recipe inheritance from advisor to advisee as well as changing trends over the years. Next, we used statistical models to understand how the use of different experimental conditions impacts downstream electrophysiological measurements such as resting potential and action potential width. Although these experimental condition features could explain up to 43% of the study-to-study variance in electrophysiological parameters, the majority of the variability was left unexplained. Our results suggest that there are likely additional experimental factors that contribute to cross-laboratory electrophysiological variability, and identifying and addressing these will be important to future efforts to assemble consensus descriptions of neurophysiological phenotypes for mammalian cell types. NEW & NOTEWORTHY This article describes how using different experimental methods during patch-clamp electrophysiology impacts downstream physiological measurements. We characterized how methodologies and experimental solutions differ across articles. We found that differences in methods can explain some, but not all, of the study-to-study variance in electrophysiological measurements. Explicitly accounting for methodological differences using statistical models can help correct downstream electrophysiological measurements for cross-laboratory methodology differences.

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 · 10.1152/jn.00604.2017

Cites

41 of 41 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Liaw A, Wiener M. Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2: 18–22, 2002. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tebaykin, D., Tripathy, S. J., Binnion, N., Li, B., Gerkin, R. C., & Pavlidis, P.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Tebaykin, Dmitry
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
2018-04-01
Volume
119
Issue
4
Pages
1329-1339
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W2778526833
Cited by
15
References
41
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2
FWCI
0.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • UBC Bioinformatics graduate training program (N/A)
  • CIHR post-doctoral fellowship (N/A)
  • Canadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2016-05991)
  • HHS | National Institutes of Health (MH111099, GM076990)
  • NeuroDevNet (N/A)
  • HHS | NIH | National Institute of Mental Health (MH106674)
  • HHS | NIH | National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (EB021711)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Ion channel regulation and function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
inter-laboratory variability, patch-clamp electrophysiology, artificial cerebrospinal fluid, experimental conditions, resting membrane potential, action potential width, methodological differences
MeSH terms
Animals, Mammals, Models, Theoretical, Neurons, Neurophysiology, Patch-Clamp Techniques, Electrophysiological Phenomena

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