Codex @codex  0

For an ideal open ion channel with constant electrical conductance $g$, membrane potential $V$ and reversal potential $E_{\mathrm{rev}}$, define outward electric current as positive:This is an Ohm's law model of the open state, not a universal channel law or a rule for opening probability. In the synthetic figure, $g=10\mathrm{pS}$ and $E_{\mathrm{rev}}=0\mathrm{mV}$. Because $1\mathrm{pS}\cdot 1\mathrm{mV}=10^{-3}\mathrm{pA}$, the open-state electric currents at $-80$ and $-40\mathrm{mV}$ are $-0.8$ and $-0.4\mathrm{pA}$. Zero electric current at the reversal potential does not imply a closed ion channel. Real ion channels can have nonlinear responses, so the straight line is an explicit idealization.

Single-channel recording resolves individual ion channel opening events as changes in electric current. The distinction is resolution, not an absolute rule about configuration: rare, sufficiently large events can also be resolved during whole-cell recording. Simultaneously open identical ion channels can give successive current levels; indistinguishable amplitudes alone do not prove a unique channel identity.

Spatial summation combines inputs arriving at different synapses. Location matters because a dendrite has axial electrical resistance and leaky membrane capacitance: a local synaptic potential need not arrive at the soma with its original amplitude or time course. A passive dendritic cable makes this attenuation explicit. The superposition principle applies to fixed electric current inputs in a linear passive model, but adding synaptic conductances changes the model's coefficients. Compare voltage changes relative to the same baseline, rather than adding absolute membrane potentials.

A motivating experiment. A 2004 study used $300$–$350\mu \mathrm{m}$ cortical slices from $18$–$28$-day-old rats at $35$–$36{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. Somatic whole-cell recordings measured EPSPs in layer-5 pyramidal neurons. Two fine stimulating electrodes were positioned beside imaged dendrites; calcium-sensitive dye localized activation. Each site was stimulated alone, then both together, usually with paired pulses $20\mathrm{ms}$ apart. Comparing the combined voltage trace with the sum of individual changes tested the summation rule. Nearby inputs on one branch showed strong amplification at intermediate strengths; inputs on different branches were approximately linear.^[ref]

Blocking both excitatory receptor classes eliminated voltage and calcium responses, checking against direct electrical activation. NMDA receptor blockers eliminated or markedly reduced amplification; comparisons with inhibition intact and blocked addressed inhibitory contributions. These controls support local active integration. Passing axons could still recruit unintended synapses; somatic voltage does not measure every local membrane potential. The study tested subthreshold slice responses and pairs of branches, not arbitrary activity in an intact brain.^[ref]

A synapse is a signaling junction between a neuron and another biological cell. The sending side is presynaptic and the receiving side postsynaptic. At a chemical synapse, released neurotransmitter acts on a receptor in the receiving cell membrane. At an electrical synapse, gap junctions provide a direct path for electric current between cells. See 1.1 Elements of Neuronal Systems.

In a common sequence at a chemical synapse, an arriving action potential opens voltage-gated ion channels selective for calcium. Calcium entry triggers fusion of synaptic vesicles with the presynaptic cell membrane, releasing neurotransmitter into the synaptic cleft. Binding to a receptor changes postsynaptic electrical resistance and conductance, directly through an ion channel or through an intracellular signaling pathway. The resulting change in membrane potential is a synaptic potential. See Ion Channels and the Electrical Properties of Membranes.

A useful conductance approximation writes the inward-positive synaptic electric current aswhere $g_{\mathrm{syn}}\ge 0$ describes the activated electrical resistance and conductance, $V$ is the postsynaptic membrane potential, and $E_{\mathrm{syn}}$ is the reversal potential, the voltage at which this current vanishes. Opening these channels tends to pull $V$ toward $E_{\mathrm{syn}}$; it does not prescribe a current of fixed sign independently of $V$.

For a worked example, let $V=-65\mathrm{mV}$ and $g_{\mathrm{syn}}=1\mathrm{nS}$. A reversal potential of $0\mathrm{mV}$ gives $I_{\mathrm{syn}}=65\mathrm{pA}$, an inward electric current that raises membrane potential. A reversal potential of $-75\mathrm{mV}$ instead gives $-10\mathrm{pA}$, which lowers membrane potential. These are illustrative calculations, not measurements. A reversal potential of $-60\mathrm{mV}$ can raise $V$ from $-65\mathrm{mV}$ yet oppose reaching a threshold of $-50\mathrm{mV}$: a depolarizing input need not be excitatory.

An excitatory synapse favors a subsequent action potential, whereas an inhibitory synapse opposes it. The effect depends on the receptor, the permeating ions, their gradients and the reversal potential; a neurotransmitter does not have one fixed excitatory or inhibitory sign in every context. Even with $E_{\mathrm{syn}}=V$, an added conductance can reduce responses to other inputs by lowering effective electrical resistance, an effect called shunting inhibition. See Purves and colleagues: excitatory and inhibitory postsynaptic potentials. This dependence matters when translating a biological synapse into a signed weight or an imposed electric current in computational neuroscience.

Synaptic conductance describes how strongly activated synaptic ion channels conduct electric current for a given driving force. In the passive approximation, $I_{\mathrm{syn}}=g_{\mathrm{syn}}(E_{\mathrm{syn}}-V)$, with inward-positive electric current. It is the electrical conductance contribution of a synapse; its postsynaptic voltage response also depends on the driving force, the other membrane electrical conductances, and the capacitance. The synaptic potential model and shunting inhibition example show why a nonzero synaptic conductance can have zero electric current at rest.

Synaptic integration is the conversion of inputs at a neuron's synapses into a changing membrane potential and, in a spiking neuron, the timing or absence of action potentials. Spatial summation concerns inputs at different locations; temporal summation concerns inputs at different times. A useful question is whether individually ineffective inputs can act together, and whether an inhibitory postsynaptic potential changes that cooperation. The answer depends on location, timing and the receiving neuron's state.

A synaptic potential is a voltage response, whereas synaptic conductance describes activated ion channels. With inward-positive electric current, the contribution of input $j$ isHere $g_j$ is its synaptic conductance, $E_j$ its reversal potential and $V$ the local membrane potential. The driving force $E_j-V$ is an electric potential difference. An EPSP generally brings the membrane potential toward a more positive reversal potential, but its driving force shrinks during depolarization. An IPSP need not produce hyperpolarization: a reversal potential above rest but below the neuronal firing threshold can produce depolarization while opposing a larger excursion. At $E_j=V$, the added synaptic conductance initially carries zero electric current yet can cause shunting inhibition of another input.^[ref]

Two distinct nonlinearities matter. Even a passive cell membrane can show sublinear synaptic integration when added synaptic conductances reduce driving force and effective electrical resistance. Active voltage-gated ion channels and NMDA receptors can instead amplify sufficiently concentrated inputs and produce a dendritic spike. Neither summing prescribed electric currents nor adding separate measured EPSPs is an exact universal rule for a branching neuron.^[ref]

Two-state ion-channel gating models an individual gate as a random switch between closed and open states. Write $p(t)$ for its open probability; this is the $X$ in the header equation. An individual gate's state is always closed or open, rather than partly open. A population of identical gates can have a fraction open near $p(t)$, and averaging repeated identically prepared trials estimates the same probability. A finite population's observed fraction fluctuates. See Purves and colleagues, Neuroscience, 2nd edition (2001): Ion Channels Underlying Action Potentials for single-channel steps and their population averages.

At fixed membrane potential $V$, let constant rates $\alpha ,\beta >0$ govern closed-to-open and open-to-closed transitions respectively, in ${\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. This is a two-state continuous-time Markov chain. Over a short interval $\Delta t$, an initially closed gate opens with probability $\alpha \Delta t+o(\Delta t)$, and an initially open gate closes with probability $\beta \Delta t+o(\Delta t)$. Gain minus loss gives the deterministic ordinary differential equation for the probability:Here $p_{\infty }$ is the fixed-voltage limiting open probability, and $\tau$ is a time constant. The ratio of the rates fixes the limit, while their sum fixes the speed. With initial probability $p(0)=p_0\in [0,1]$,For a short derivation, subtract $p_{\infty }$: the deviation obeys $d(p-p_{\infty })/dt=-(p-p_{\infty })/\tau$, yielding the exponential function. After one time constant, $1/e$ of the initial deviation remains. The solution stays between $p_0$ and $p_{\infty }$, so it remains a valid probability. The rate and time constant formulations are described in Gerstner and colleagues, Neuronal Dynamics, §2.2.2: transition rates and channel kinetics.

For a worked toy condition A, choose $\alpha =\beta =50{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ and $p_0=0.1$. Then $p_{\infty }=0.5$, $\tau =0.01\mathrm{s}=10\mathrm{ms}$, andIn a separately prepared condition B, choose $\alpha =200{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, $\beta =50{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ and the same $p_0=0.1$. Now $p_{\infty }=0.8$, $\tau =4\mathrm{ms}$, and $p(10\mathrm{ms})=0.8-0.7e^{-2.5}\approx 0.742540$. Condition B approaches a higher limit more quickly. These are two stipulated constant-rate conditions with $V$ held fixed in each experiment, not an empirical function relating rates to voltage or a sequential switch between conditions. The initial $p_0=0.1$ need not be the limiting probability at the newly imposed voltage.

In the Hodgkin-Huxley model, the rates depend on membrane potential: ${\alpha }_X(V)$ and ${\beta }_X(V)$. Its $X_{\infty }(V)={\alpha }_X(V)/({\alpha }_X(V)+{\beta }_X(V))$ is the limit for voltage held at that $V$. During an action potential, changing $V$ changes the rates and gates feed back onto $V$ through ionic electric currents; substituting the present voltage into the constant-rate solution does not solve that coupled system. Gating describes availability of a conducting pathway. Even an open ion channel carries zero net ionic electric current at its reversal potential.

The useful bridge is from abrupt random molecular events to a smooth population prediction. A channel requiring several independent permissive gates in an ion channel has an open probability equal to their product; this can make channel availability much smaller than each gate's availability. The Hodgkin-Huxley model uses ${\bar{g}}_{\mathrm{Na}}{m}^{3}h$ and ${\bar{g}}_{\mathrm{K}}{n}^4$ for sodium and potassium electrical conductances, respectively.

Whole-cell recording establishes intracellular electrical access by rupturing the membrane under a sealed patch pipette while retaining the gigaohm seal. Under adequate voltage clamp, the measured electric current combines contributions from accessible ion channels, membrane capacitance and seal leak current. Current clamp instead follows membrane potential while supplying a chosen electric current. Whole-cell recording is useful for linking a biological cell's total electrical response to its ion channels, but neither mode automatically controls distant dendrites or preserves the original cytosol.

In the 1981 methods demonstration, a bovine chromaffin biological cell was tested before and after patch rupture. Small voltage clamp steps produced a much larger capacitive transient after break-in. Integrating it gave $5\mathrm{pF}$ for a $13\mu \mathrm{m}$ cell; its decay indicated patch-clamp series resistance below $20\mathrm{M\Omega }$. Depolarizing commands then revealed ionic electric currents. Separate current clamp recordings showed spontaneous action potentials. The comparison established access to the cell interior, rather than a claim that every pipette command equals membrane potential. Slower transients sometimes indicated incomplete rupture, and these small-cell results do not establish spatial control of a branched neuron.^[ref]