It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
In calcium imaging studies, Ca2+ transients are commonly interpreted as neuronal action potentials (APs). However, our findings demonstrate that robust optical Ca2+ transients primarily stem from complex “AP-Plateaus”, while simple APs lacking underlying depolarization envelopes produce much weaker photonic signatures. Under challenging in vivo conditions, these “AP-Plateaus” are likely to surpass noise levels, thus dominating the Ca2+ recordings. In spontaneously active neuronal culture, optical Ca2+ transients (OGB1-AM, GCaMP6f) exhibited approximately tenfold greater amplitude and twofold longer half-width compared to optical voltage transients (ArcLightD). The amplitude of the ArcLightD signal exhibited a strong correlation with the duration of the underlying membrane depolarization, and a weaker correlation with the presence of a fast sodium AP. Specifically, ArcLightD exhibited robust responsiveness to the slow “foot” but not the fast “trunk” of the neuronal AP. Particularly potent stimulators of optical signals in both Ca2+ and voltage imaging modalities were APs combined with plateau potentials (AP-Plateaus), resembling dendritic Ca2+ spikes or “UP states” in pyramidal neurons. Interestingly, even the spikeless plateaus (amplitude > 10 mV, duration > 200 ms) could generate conspicuous Ca2+ optical signals in neurons. Therefore, in certain circumstances, Ca2+ transients should not be interpreted solely as indicators of neuronal AP firing.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Institute for Systems Genomics, UConn Health, University of Connecticut Health, School of Medicine, Farmington, USA (GRID:grid.208078.5) (ISNI:0000000419370394); University of Belgrade, Faculty of Biology, Institute of Physiology and Biochemistry ‘Jean Giaja’, Center for Laser Microscopy, Belgrade, Serbia (GRID:grid.7149.b) (ISNI:0000 0001 2166 9385)
2 Institute for Systems Genomics, UConn Health, University of Connecticut Health, School of Medicine, Farmington, USA (GRID:grid.208078.5) (ISNI:0000000419370394)
3 The John B. Pierce Laboratory, New Haven, USA (GRID:grid.280777.d) (ISNI:0000 0004 0465 0414); School of Medicine, Yale University, Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, New Haven, USA (GRID:grid.47100.32) (ISNI:0000000419368710)
4 University of Belgrade, Faculty of Biology, Institute of Physiology and Biochemistry ‘Jean Giaja’, Center for Laser Microscopy, Belgrade, Serbia (GRID:grid.7149.b) (ISNI:0000 0001 2166 9385)