The effect of aminosulfonate buffers on the light responses and intracellular pH of goldfish retinal horizontal cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retinal horizontal cell feedback acts as a gain control at the first synapse in the visual system and generates center-surround receptive fields in the outer retina. One model of feedback proposes that elevation of protons in the photoreceptor synaptic cleft produces feedback. Most evidence supporting the proton model has depended on the effect of proton buffers, in particular aminosulfonates, but these agents could potentially have effects other than external pH regulation. We therefore determined if the effects of aminosulfonates on horizontal cell rollback, an indicator of feedback, were consistent with external proton buffering. Intracellular recording from horizontal cells in isolated goldfish retina revealed that rollback was blocked only by aminosulfonates with an acid dissociation constant suited for buffering at the pH (7.5) of the Ringer's solution. In isolated goldfish horizontal cells, aminosulfonates, even those that did not block rollback, altered intracellular pH. This suggests that the effect of aminosulfonates on rollback is not because of changing intracellular pH. Measures of both intracellular and extracellular pH revealed that treatment with either glutamate or kainate resulted in acidification. As glutamate produced both internal and external acidification, intracellular and extracellular horizontal cell pH would be expected to increase in response to light, a change consistent with the proton model of feedback.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".