Quantitative comparison of novel GCaMP-type genetically encoded Ca2+ indicators in mammalian neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New variants of GCaMP-type genetically encoded Ca(2+) indicators (GECIs) have been continuously developed and heavily used in many areas of biology including neuroscience. The latest subfamily called "GECOs" were developed with in vitro high-throughput screening, and shown to have novel spectral properties and/or improved fluorescent responses over their ancestor GCaMP3. The most critical parameter in evaluating performance in neurons, however, remains uncharacterized: the relationship between the GECI responses and the number of action potentials (APs). Here we analyzed the GECI responses to APs in cortical pyramidal cells of mouse acute brain slices. Unexpectedly, we found that none of the GECOs exhibited any improved performance over GCaMP3. Our results imply that careful validation is required for the accurate prediction of the actual performance of GECIs in mammalian neurons. We propose that appropriate guidelines for evaluating their efficacy should be established for the benefit of research community, given the rapidly expanding use of GECIs in neuroscience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".