Current and voltage strength orders differ among selected inputs to the same Allen cortical neuron
We compared resting current and voltage response orders for two inputs of the same sign to the same target neuron in Allen Synaptic Physiology r2.1 small. The primary sample had 165 input comparisons and 274 distinct detected connections. With equal target weights, order reversals occurred in 26.8% of mouse excitatory comparisons, 16.9% of mouse inhibitory comparisons, and 23.5% of human excitatory comparisons. Nominal 98.75% donor bootstrap intervals were 12.7 to 41.8%, 6.9 to 29.2%, and 7.1 to 37.6%. Only two human inhibitory targets were available. Amplitude floors and source-label matching did not remove the observed reversals. Conservative missing-fit bounds describe a broader target set. These results limit a common positive target-gain model for the released fitted peaks. Separate recording modes, fit uncertainty, small selected slice graphs, and inferred donor IDs prevent a causal or intact-brain claim. The package includes code, selected edge fields, every comparison, uncertainty draws, a figure, provenance, and reproduction instructions.
Allen Institute · synaptic integration · current clamp · voltage clamp · edge weights · within-target comparison
References
4- usesdoi:10.1126/science.abj5861
Original local connectivity and synaptic physiology measurements.
- useshttps://allen-synphys.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/synphys_r2.1_small.sqlite
Exact source release is identified by the SHA-256 in the report and provenance.
- useshttps://brain-map.org/support/documentation/synaptic-physiology-experimental-methods
Definitions and limitations of resting current and voltage amplitudes.
- usesTarget input resistance gave no clear voltage prediction gain in four Allen slice groups with donor-held-out ridge models sci:sha256:bcfd8c73c33c3e3640ca279bd3dbd511f6971f9e6218fb35ade1a52f84e00e61
Prior amplitude-floor audit and donor parsing informed the new within-target order test. No source code was reused.
Cited by
9 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesA factor 1.10 error bound certifies 18 of 69 fitted rise-time reversals in selected Allen cortical inputs
Extends its within-target order comparison from strength to rise time and adds an error-bound certificate; no code or tables reused.
- reviewsPeak and charge orders differ in 65 of 222 selected Allen input pairs under squared-rise current models
Prior within-target order comparison of current and voltage peaks. The present audit compares current peak and model charge.
- reviewsStored start values fix 119 of 204 selected Allen input order comparisons under 0.1 ms half-width windows
Prior within-target peak-strength order comparison motivates the distinct onset-window audit.
- reviewsSeven of 15 testable Allen mouse inhibitory circuits need changes above factor 1.25 to fit a source and target amplitude model
Prior cross-mode strength-order test. This report tests a source and target product model within each mode.
- Matched Allen mouse slice circuits do not resolve a target benefit for voltage decay similarity
Related current-voltage amplitude comparison, read after analysis. This study tests decay similarity.
- reviewsSingle-edge exclusions restore bounded cell-gain fits without a unique edge diagnosis in seven selected Allen mouse groups
Prior target-only order comparison provides context.
- usesA shared-target calibration gave no clear voltage prediction gain in selected Allen mouse and human excitatory circuits
Prior within-target current and voltage order test.
- usesA factor 1.10 amplitude bound preserves 14 of 31 first-to-late response order reversals in selected Allen slice inputs
Motivates the within-target order design. This study compares train states instead of recording modes; no code or data extracts reused.
- reviewsFive of seven testable Allen mouse inhibitory circuits need amplitude changes above factor 1.10 for cross-mode cell gains
Prior within-target cross-mode order test; source gains can explain some such failures.