“迷你分析”错误地描述了由于不完整的事件检测而导致的突触特性的变化。

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES
Ingo H Greger, Jake F Watson
{"title":"“迷你分析”错误地描述了由于不完整的事件检测而导致的突触特性的变化。","authors":"Ingo H Greger, Jake F Watson","doi":"10.1113/JP288183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Patch-clamp recording of miniature postsynaptic currents (mPSCs, or 'minis') is used extensively to investigate the functional properties of synapses. With this approach, spontaneous synaptic transmission events are recorded in an attempt to determine quantal synaptic parameters or the effect of synaptic manipulations. However, at the majority of brain synapses these events are small, with many undetectable due to recording noise. The effects of incomplete detection were well appreciated in the early years of synaptic physiology analysis, but appear to be increasingly forgotten. Here we sought to characterise the consequences of incomplete detection on the interpretability of mini analysis, using simulated mPSC data to give full control over event parameters. We demonstrate that commonly reported measures such as mean event amplitude and frequency, are misrepresented by the loss of undetected events. Probabilistic loss of small events results in detected event amplitude distributions that appear biologically complete, yet do not reflect the underlying synaptic properties. With both simulated and experimental datasets, we demonstrate that specific changes in event amplitude are primarily detected as changes in frequency, compromising classical biological interpretations. To facilitate more robust data analysis and interpretation, we detail a means for experimental estimation of the event detection limit and provide practical recommendations for data analysis. Together, our study highlights how mini analysis is prone to falsely reporting synaptic changes, raising awareness of these considerations, and provides a framework for more robust data analysis and interpretation. KEY POINTS: 'Mini analysis' (patch-clamp recording of miniature synaptic currents, mPSCs) is widely used to assess synaptic function, relying on detection of spontaneous synaptic events. Detection of mPSC events is almost inevitably incomplete, as event amplitudes are close to the level of recording noise - a limitation that was well recognised in earlier literature but is often overlooked today. Using in silico simulated datasets, this study characterises how incomplete detection distorts reported parameters and the distributions of detected events. These effects can routinely compromise biological interpretation of mPSC data, particularly the interpretation of amplitude and frequency changes. We present a method for experimental estimation of the detection limit and make practical recommendations for maximally careful interpretation of mini data.</p>","PeriodicalId":50088,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Physiology-London","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'Mini analysis' misrepresents changes in synaptic properties due to incomplete event detection.\",\"authors\":\"Ingo H Greger, Jake F Watson\",\"doi\":\"10.1113/JP288183\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Patch-clamp recording of miniature postsynaptic currents (mPSCs, or 'minis') is used extensively to investigate the functional properties of synapses. With this approach, spontaneous synaptic transmission events are recorded in an attempt to determine quantal synaptic parameters or the effect of synaptic manipulations. However, at the majority of brain synapses these events are small, with many undetectable due to recording noise. The effects of incomplete detection were well appreciated in the early years of synaptic physiology analysis, but appear to be increasingly forgotten. Here we sought to characterise the consequences of incomplete detection on the interpretability of mini analysis, using simulated mPSC data to give full control over event parameters. We demonstrate that commonly reported measures such as mean event amplitude and frequency, are misrepresented by the loss of undetected events. Probabilistic loss of small events results in detected event amplitude distributions that appear biologically complete, yet do not reflect the underlying synaptic properties. With both simulated and experimental datasets, we demonstrate that specific changes in event amplitude are primarily detected as changes in frequency, compromising classical biological interpretations. To facilitate more robust data analysis and interpretation, we detail a means for experimental estimation of the event detection limit and provide practical recommendations for data analysis. Together, our study highlights how mini analysis is prone to falsely reporting synaptic changes, raising awareness of these considerations, and provides a framework for more robust data analysis and interpretation. KEY POINTS: 'Mini analysis' (patch-clamp recording of miniature synaptic currents, mPSCs) is widely used to assess synaptic function, relying on detection of spontaneous synaptic events. Detection of mPSC events is almost inevitably incomplete, as event amplitudes are close to the level of recording noise - a limitation that was well recognised in earlier literature but is often overlooked today. Using in silico simulated datasets, this study characterises how incomplete detection distorts reported parameters and the distributions of detected events. These effects can routinely compromise biological interpretation of mPSC data, particularly the interpretation of amplitude and frequency changes. We present a method for experimental estimation of the detection limit and make practical recommendations for maximally careful interpretation of mini data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50088,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Physiology-London\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Physiology-London\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1113/JP288183\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Physiology-London","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1113/JP288183","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

膜片钳记录微型突触后电流(mPSCs,或‘minis’)被广泛用于研究突触的功能特性。通过这种方法,记录自发突触传递事件,试图确定量子突触参数或突触操作的影响。然而,在大多数大脑突触中,这些事件很小,由于记录噪音,许多事件无法检测到。不完全检测的影响在早期的突触生理学分析中得到了很好的认识,但似乎越来越被遗忘。在这里,我们试图描述不完全检测对迷你分析的可解释性的后果,使用模拟mPSC数据来完全控制事件参数。我们证明了通常报告的测量,如平均事件振幅和频率,被未检测到的事件损失错误地表示。小事件的概率损失导致检测到的事件振幅分布看起来生物学完整,但不能反映潜在的突触特性。通过模拟和实验数据集,我们证明了事件振幅的特定变化主要是通过频率的变化来检测的,这损害了经典的生物学解释。为了促进更稳健的数据分析和解释,我们详细介绍了事件检测极限的实验估计方法,并为数据分析提供了实用的建议。总之,我们的研究强调了迷你分析是如何容易错误地报告突触变化的,提高了对这些考虑因素的认识,并为更可靠的数据分析和解释提供了一个框架。“微型分析”(膜片钳记录微型突触电流,mPSCs)被广泛用于评估突触功能,依赖于自发突触事件的检测。由于事件振幅接近记录噪声的水平,对mPSC事件的检测几乎不可避免地是不完整的——这一限制在早期文献中得到了很好的认识,但今天经常被忽视。使用计算机模拟数据集,本研究描述了不完全检测如何扭曲报告的参数和检测到的事件的分布。这些影响通常会损害mPSC数据的生物学解释,特别是对振幅和频率变化的解释。我们提出了一种检测限的实验估计方法,并提出了最大限度地仔细解释小数据的实用建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
'Mini analysis' misrepresents changes in synaptic properties due to incomplete event detection.

Patch-clamp recording of miniature postsynaptic currents (mPSCs, or 'minis') is used extensively to investigate the functional properties of synapses. With this approach, spontaneous synaptic transmission events are recorded in an attempt to determine quantal synaptic parameters or the effect of synaptic manipulations. However, at the majority of brain synapses these events are small, with many undetectable due to recording noise. The effects of incomplete detection were well appreciated in the early years of synaptic physiology analysis, but appear to be increasingly forgotten. Here we sought to characterise the consequences of incomplete detection on the interpretability of mini analysis, using simulated mPSC data to give full control over event parameters. We demonstrate that commonly reported measures such as mean event amplitude and frequency, are misrepresented by the loss of undetected events. Probabilistic loss of small events results in detected event amplitude distributions that appear biologically complete, yet do not reflect the underlying synaptic properties. With both simulated and experimental datasets, we demonstrate that specific changes in event amplitude are primarily detected as changes in frequency, compromising classical biological interpretations. To facilitate more robust data analysis and interpretation, we detail a means for experimental estimation of the event detection limit and provide practical recommendations for data analysis. Together, our study highlights how mini analysis is prone to falsely reporting synaptic changes, raising awareness of these considerations, and provides a framework for more robust data analysis and interpretation. KEY POINTS: 'Mini analysis' (patch-clamp recording of miniature synaptic currents, mPSCs) is widely used to assess synaptic function, relying on detection of spontaneous synaptic events. Detection of mPSC events is almost inevitably incomplete, as event amplitudes are close to the level of recording noise - a limitation that was well recognised in earlier literature but is often overlooked today. Using in silico simulated datasets, this study characterises how incomplete detection distorts reported parameters and the distributions of detected events. These effects can routinely compromise biological interpretation of mPSC data, particularly the interpretation of amplitude and frequency changes. We present a method for experimental estimation of the detection limit and make practical recommendations for maximally careful interpretation of mini data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Physiology-London
Journal of Physiology-London 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
7.30%
发文量
817
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Physiology publishes full-length original Research Papers and Techniques for Physiology, which are short papers aimed at disseminating new techniques for physiological research. Articles solicited by the Editorial Board include Perspectives, Symposium Reports and Topical Reviews, which highlight areas of special physiological interest. CrossTalk articles are short editorial-style invited articles framing a debate between experts in the field on controversial topics. Letters to the Editor and Journal Club articles are also published. All categories of papers are subjected to peer reivew. The Journal of Physiology welcomes submitted research papers in all areas of physiology. Authors should present original work that illustrates new physiological principles or mechanisms. Papers on work at the molecular level, at the level of the cell membrane, single cells, tissues or organs and on systems physiology are all acceptable. Theoretical papers and papers that use computational models to further our understanding of physiological processes will be considered if based on experimentally derived data and if the hypothesis advanced is directly amenable to experimental testing. While emphasis is on human and mammalian physiology, work on lower vertebrate or invertebrate preparations may be suitable if it furthers the understanding of the functioning of other organisms including mammals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信