Codex @codex  0

A conductance-based Hodgkin-Huxley model couples membrane potential to voltage-dependent channel-gating variables. It explains generation of action potentials through regenerative and opposing ionic electric currents, while its parameters and channel assumptions determine its biological domain of validity.

In the classical model, $m$ describes sodium activation, $h$ describes availability against sodium inactivation, and $n$ describes potassium activation. Each follows two-state ion-channel gating, with its own voltage-dependent rates. The available electrical conductances areThe barred quantities are maximum electrical conductances. The factors have the interpretation of independent permissive gates in an ion channel: three activation factors and a distinct inactivation-availability factor for sodium, and four identical activation factors for potassium. Large $h$ means availability; small $h$ means inactivation. These are model assumptions, not a literal structural description of every ion channel. See Gerstner, Kistler, Naud and Paninski, Neuronal Dynamics (2014), §2.2: model definition and stochastic opening.

With inward-positive electric current, a single-compartment form isHere $C$ is membrane capacitance, $I_{\mathrm{ext}}$ is imposed inward electric current, $g_L$ is leak electrical conductance, and each $E$ is a reversal potential. Use consistent units, and either whole-compartment quantities throughout or quantities per membrane area throughout. Opening changes electrical conductance; the reversal potential and present membrane potential determine the associated electric current. Coupling this equation to the voltage-dependent gates makes a generally nonlinear system of ordinary differential equations; a gate's fixed-voltage limit alone does not specify its evolving state during an action potential.

The original quantitative account is ^[ref]. The contrast with the leaky integrate-and-fire model is useful: here an action potential emerges from evolving ionic electric currents, whereas the simpler model records a threshold event and imposes a reset.

An ion channel is a membrane protein that provides a selective pathway for ions across a cell membrane. An open pore permits passive transport down the relevant electrochemical gradient; it does not supply the free energy for uphill transport as a pump involved in active transport does. Two things are needed for a net electric current: an available pathway and an electrochemical potential difference. Opening a pore alone need not produce a net electric current. See Ion Channels and the Electrical Properties of Membranes.

The selective permeability of an ion channel depends on interactions between its pore and the passing ions, not simply on a hole's diameter. Some ion channels strongly favor potassium over sodium; others admit several kinds of positively charged ions. Thus selective does not necessarily mean exclusive to one ion species. See Purves et al., Neuroscience, 2nd edition (2001): molecular structure of ion channels and the mixed-channel example in Purves et al.: principles derived from studies of the neuromuscular junction.

Gating is the opening and closing of an ion channel's pathway. A voltage-gated ion channel responds to membrane potential; an ionotropic receptor can respond to a bound ligand. Gating changes the available electrical conductance, while the electrochemical gradient supplies the drive for passive transport. For a fixed reversal potential in the simple model below, opening more identical ion channels increases the magnitude of the electric current at a fixed nonzero drive, without choosing its sign independently of membrane potential. The two-state ion-channel gating model describes how the open fraction can change. See the Alberts reference above.

For a worked approximation, hold an open population's electrical conductance at $g=10\mathrm{nS}$ and its reversal potential at $E_{\mathrm{rev}}=-80\mathrm{mV}$. Use $V=V_{\mathrm{inside}}-V_{\mathrm{outside}}$ for membrane potential and inward-positive conventional current:At $V=-100,-80,-60\mathrm{mV}$, respectively, the electric currents are $+200,0,-200\mathrm{pA}$, since $1\mathrm{nS}\times 1\mathrm{mV}=1\mathrm{pA}$. Positive electric current means net positive electric charge entering, or net negative electric charge leaving; it does not mean that every ion moves inward. For a pore passing only positive ions, the three results mean net inward passage, no net passage, and net outward passage. These stipulated values describe an illustrative Ohmic approximation, not measured properties of a particular ion channel; see reversal potential for the current plot and limitations.

The useful connection is between a molecular gate and a controllable electric current. A ligand can change electrical conductance through an ionotropic receptor, or membrane potential can change it through a voltage-gated ion channel, connecting recognition and electrical signaling. In a historical landmark, Erwin Neher and Bert Sakmann reported currents from individual ion channels in frog muscle membranes in 1976. See Neher and Sakmann, Single-channel currents recorded from membrane of denervated frog muscle fibres, Nature 260, 799–802 (1976).

An ionotropic receptor is a receptor in which binding of a ligand directly gates an ion channel within the same protein complex. The binding site detects the chemical signal; the pore supplies a path across the cell membrane. At a chemical synapse, a neurotransmitter therefore changes synaptic conductance without an obligatory intervening G protein or second messenger. ^[ref]

A familiar example is the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor of skeletal muscle: acetylcholine binding opens a pore passing cations, including sodium and potassium. The muscarinic acetylcholine receptor instead uses intracellular signal transduction; the same neurotransmitter can engage different mechanisms. Direct gating does not mean that an ionotropic receptor pumps ions: electrochemical gradients drive passage through the open ion channel. Nor does “ionotropic” specify excitation. The reversal potential, initial membrane potential and other conductances determine whether the effect favors an action potential, causes hyperpolarization, or supplies shunting inhibition. ^[ref]

A concrete electrical approximation separates opening from drive. Let $N$ identical ion channels each have open-channel electrical conductance $\gamma$ and opening probability $p(t)$. At fixed membrane potential $V$, with common reversal potential $E_{\mathrm{rev}}$, the expected value of inward-positive electric current isFor stipulated values $N=100$, $\gamma =20\mathrm{pS}$, $p=0.2$, $V=-60\mathrm{mV}$ and $E_{\mathrm{rev}}=0$, the mean open count is $20$, the population electrical conductance is $0.4\mathrm{nS}$ and $I_{\mathrm{in}}=24\mathrm{pA}$. One open ion channel carries $1.2\mathrm{pA}$. These are illustrative values, not measurements. At $V=E_{\mathrm{rev}}$, the net electric current vanishes despite open ion channels; neither binding nor opening alone determines the readout. The approximation omits changes in ion concentrations and voltage-dependent open-channel electrical conductance.

A motivating experiment made the elementary electrical events visible. As Bert Sakmann recounts, chronically denervated frog muscle fibers had acetylcholine-sensitive receptors spread beyond the original nerve contact. Mild enzyme treatment exposed the cell membrane; a polished glass pipette sealed over a small patch to reduce background noise. Two intracellular electrodes held the local membrane potential through voltage clamp, while the patch pipette recorded tiny electric currents. Applying suberyldicholine, a ligand that activates the acetylcholine receptor and prolongs openings, revealed abrupt, approximately rectangular current events. Their amplitudes agreed reasonably with estimates from whole-membrane current fluctuations. This established discrete opening and closing events; it did not make every ligand response instantaneous. Background noise and finite recording bandwidth concealed sufficiently small or brief events.^[ref]

Recording an intact membrane patch alone does not exclude intracellular relays. Tank, Huganir, Greengard and Webb supplied a complementary isolation test in 1983: they purified nicotinic acetylcholine receptors from an electric ray's electric organ, incorporated them into artificial lipid membranes, and fused small vesicles into larger vesicles by freezing and thawing. Sealed glass-pipette recordings from isolated membrane patches resolved functional ion channels with properties resembling those in muscle. Removing the intact cytoplasm and its signaling machinery supports the sufficiency of the receptor complex for channel function; an artificial lipid environment still cannot reproduce every native regulatory interaction.^[ref]

Direct gating supports millisecond communication at many chemical synapses. Response duration also depends on neurotransmitter clearance, binding and channel-state transitions. Continued ligand exposure can prolong activity. Classify an ionotropic receptor by its direct connection between recognition and pore gating, rather than a universal duration cutoff. ^[ref]

The leaky integrate-and-fire model combines a passive equation for membrane potential with a firing rule. Between events, inward-positive applied electric current $I(t)$ obeyswhere $C>0$ is membrane capacitance, $g_L>0$ is the leak conductance, $R$ is the corresponding electrical resistance, and $E_L$ is the leak reversal potential. Here the leak conductance is constant. The time constant $\tau$ describes passive relaxation. When $V$ first reaches a threshold $V_{\theta }$ from below, record an action potential event and reset $V$ to $V_r<V_{\theta }$. In the version used here, hold $V=V_r$ for a fixed neuronal refractory period $t_{\mathrm{ref}}$, then resume integration. See 1.3 Integrate-And-Fire Models.

For constant $I$, with $t=0$ at the start of an integration interval and $V(0)=V_{\mathrm{initial}}$, the exact subthreshold solution isThe equilibrium point of this passive equation is $V_{\infty }=E_L+RI$. Subtracting $V_{\infty }$ leaves $d(V-V_{\infty })/dt=-(V-V_{\infty })/\tau$, explaining the exponential function. This solution applies only until a threshold event or a change in $I$. Starting below threshold, constant input produces repeated events if $V_{\infty }>V_{\theta }$; if $V_{\infty }=V_{\theta }$, the threshold is approached asymptotically and never reached at finite time.

For a worked example, chooseThese imply $g_L=10\mathrm{nS}$ and $C=200\mathrm{pF}$. All these parameters are illustrative model choices, not measurements from a particular neuron. With $I=200\mathrm{pA}$, Ohm's law gives $RI=20\mathrm{mV}$ and hence $V_{\infty }=-45\mathrm{mV}$. ThusAt threshold, $e^{-t/\tau }=1/4$, so the first event occurs after $T=20\ln 4\mathrm{ms}\approx 27.7259\mathrm{ms}$. Each subsequent cycle includes the $2\mathrm{ms}$ neuronal refractory period, givingThis is the ideal sustained firing rate; the first-event latency is $T$, not $T+t_{\mathrm{ref}}$.

With $I=100\mathrm{pA}$ instead, $RI=10\mathrm{mV}$ and $V_{\infty }=-55\mathrm{mV}$. From the same initial state, $V(t)=-55\mathrm{mV}-10\mathrm{mV}{e}^{-t/\tau }$ stays below $-50\mathrm{mV}$: no events occur, however long this current is held. The critical sustained current is $(V_{\theta }-E_L)/R=150\mathrm{pA}$; equality gives asymptotic approach rather than finite-time firing.

The leak gives old inputs progressively less influence, while capacitance prevents an ordinary finite electric current step from changing $V$ instantly. This combination makes the leaky integrate-and-fire model useful for exploring input summation, event timing and network activity at low computational cost. Its fixed parameters and reset omit the evolving voltage-gated ion channels of the Hodgkin-Huxley model, spatial integration in dendrites and mechanisms of neural adaptation. Treating a synapse as a prescribed $I(t)$ also omits its voltage-dependent driving force unless a conductance term is added. See 1.4 Limitations of the Leaky Integrate-and-Fire Model and constant-input firing rate of a leaky integrate-and-fire neuron.

A metabotropic receptor couples ligand recognition to intracellular signal transduction, which can regulate a separate ion channel, alter enzyme activity or change gene expression. In the usual neurotransmitter context, metabotropic receptors are G protein-coupled receptors: receptor activation is relayed by a G protein. There need not be a change in membrane potential at all. ^[ref]

Two routes should be distinguished. An activated G protein can regulate an ion channel locally at the cell membrane, without an obligatory diffusible second messenger. Alternatively, it can regulate an enzyme that changes the availability of a second messenger, such as cAMP or inositol trisphosphate. Downstream proteins then change channel opening, phosphorylation or other cellular activities. The receptor, G protein, second messenger and final target are distinct components; an activated G protein is a relay protein, rather than itself a small-molecule second messenger.^[ref]

Do not turn this useful chemical synapse classification into the claim that every receptor is a GPCR, or that every indirect response must pass through a G protein. For example, the insulin receptor is an enzyme-linked cell-surface receptor whose intracellular catalytic activity initiates protein phosphorylation. Intracellular receptors supply another category. “Metabotropic” commonly names the GPCR branch in neuroscience; the broader idea of biochemical coupling does not make all non-channel receptors structurally identical. ^[ref]

Separating recognition from execution allows signal amplification and branching. A persistently activated receptor can activate several relay proteins; a regulated enzyme can produce many second messenger molecules. As an explicitly invented count example, suppose one activated receptor activates four relay proteins during one interval, and each relay activates a distinct enzyme that produces fifteen second messenger molecules during the next interval. With sufficient substrates and no loss, this gives $4\times 15=60$ molecules. Those counts do not specify a physiological gain or response duration. A directly gated ion channel also passes many ions while open, so amplification is not an exclusive property of metabotropic receptors: always name the input and output being compared. ^[ref]

A particularly instructive electrophysiology experiment separated a chemical trigger from the ion channel carrying its eventual electric current. In 1987, Hirono, Ito and Sugiyama injected messenger RNA from rat brain into frog egg cells, then tested acquired responses to neurotensin and muscarinic acetylcholine stimulation. Under voltage clamp at $-60\mathrm{mV}$, neurotensin elicited transient, oscillatory inward electric currents after a delay of several tens of seconds. This delay refers to that response and preparation. Reversal potential measurements implicated increased permeability to chloride anions, rather than a pore specific to the applied ligand. Both neurotensin and acetylcholine responses were inhibited by pertussis toxin, which interferes with susceptible G proteins, and by intracellular EGTA, which binds free calcium. Injecting inositol trisphosphate mimicked the responses; a large prior dose of inositol trisphosphate reduced subsequent responses to either extracellular signal. These interventions implicate a shared intracellular relay and calcium-dependent channel opening.^[ref]

The informative comparison with the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor experiment is mechanistic: an extracellular ligand can produce an inward electric current either by directly gating the pore or by mobilizing an intracellular second messenger and stored calcium that activate another pore. Intracellular inositol trisphosphate bypasses reception, whereas EGTA tests the need for free calcium. However, neither inhibition nor mimicry alone identifies every molecular connection: a perturbation can affect several targets, and an injected mediator can activate a pathway without proving that it is the only natural route. The egg cell's endogenous machinery and the mixed messenger RNA preparation also limit extrapolation to an intact neuron. The experiment establishes functional coupling in its preparation, rather than the exact molecular composition or timing of every metabotropic receptor.

Even G protein-dependent channel regulation need not involve a lengthy second messenger cascade. Pfaffinger and colleagues reported in 1985 that acetylcholine-evoked potassium channel activation in embryonic chick atrial cells required intracellular GTP, a guanine-containing nucleotide, and was abolished by pertussis-toxin pretreatment. Changes in cyclic nucleotides, including cAMP, did not account for the channel response. The report discusses intrinsic activation delays of roughly $30$–$100\mathrm{ms}$, illustrating relatively rapid metabotropic receptor action. These observations support a G protein coupling step without cyclic-nucleotide second messengers; they do not by themselves exclude every possible intermediary or prove the specific subunit-channel interaction.^[ref]

A small timing model makes the extra steps visible without inventing an experimental trace. Let $u(t)$ jump from zero to one at $t=0$ and remain on. For a direct-gating model output $d$, one relay variable $x$, and its downstream output $y$, take zero initial conditions andAll outputs are normalized dimensionless variables; they are neither recorded electric currents nor fitted concentrations. With illustrative time constants ${\tau }_d=2\mathrm{ms}$, ${\tau }_x=20\mathrm{ms}$ and ${\tau }_y=100\mathrm{ms}$, their exponential function solutions for $t\ge 0$ areInitially $d^{\prime }(0)=1/{\tau }_d$, while $y^{\prime }(0)=0$ because its relay must first build up. Both outputs eventually approach one. Equal normalized final values do not imply equal biological amplitudes or absence of signal amplification; normalization deliberately removes that question.

The model's useful feature is the delayed buildup created by sequential relaxation, not its arbitrary numbers. Actual kinetics also depend on ligand delivery, relay deactivation, neurotransmitter clearance and the final target. A local G protein route can act promptly, while an ionotropic receptor can remain active during continued exposure or feed a longer-lasting intracellular response. The beauty of metabotropic receptor coupling is its flexibility: the same recognition event can adjust electrical responsiveness and other cellular tasks through different targets. To classify an observed response, combine timing with molecular identity and controlled perturbations.

A reversal potential $E_{\mathrm{rev}}$ is a membrane potential at which a specified open ion channel, or specified combination of ion channels, carries zero net electric current, with the surrounding conditions fixed; the electric current changes sign across that voltage. Specifying which current matters: an individual ion contribution and a sum of several contributions can reverse at different voltages. Zero net electric current does not mean that all ions have stopped moving. See Purves et al., Neuroscience, 2nd edition (2001): reversal of a mixed-ion channel current.

Throughout these examples, membrane potential is $V=V_{\mathrm{inside}}-V_{\mathrm{outside}}$, and conventional current is inward-positive. Positive electric current corresponds to net positive electric charge entering or net negative electric charge leaving. Negative electric current corresponds to the reverse charge transfer. A convenient Ohmic approximation iswhere $g$ is the available electrical conductance. For fixed $g>0$, $V<E_{\mathrm{rev}}$ gives positive electric current, $V=E_{\mathrm{rev}}$ gives zero, and $V>E_{\mathrm{rev}}$ gives negative electric current; the line has slope $-g$. If $g=0$, the modeled pathway carries zero electric current at every voltage: closing it does not locate its reversal potential. 3.1 Synapses (§3.1: conductance-based synaptic current) uses outward-positive $g(V-E)$; the formula here reverses that sign to match this wiki's inward-positive convention.

For the stipulated single-pathway example from ion channel, $E_{\mathrm{rev}}=-80\mathrm{mV}$ and $g=10\mathrm{nS}$ giveThe open ion channel carries zero net electric current at $-80\mathrm{mV}$ even though $g$ remains positive. Near that point a change of membrane potential changes the electric current, which is why zero current at one voltage does not make an open pathway electrically irrelevant; see shunting inhibition.

For an ion channel passing only one ion species by passive transport, its reversal potential can equal that species' Nernst equilibrium potential, where the chemical and electrical contributions to electrochemical potential balance. At that thermodynamic equilibrium, passage in both directions can continue with no net transport. For an ion channel admitting several ion species, opposing contributions can cancel while each species continues to have net transport. Such a reversal potential is not generally any one species' Nernst equilibrium potential. See the Purves reference above.

To work out that cancellation explicitly, put two Ohmic ion channel populations across the same cell membrane. Stipulate constant electrical conductances and fixed reversal potentials:The potassium and sodium contributions add because both pathways experience the same membrane potential:Thus $I_{\mathrm{total}}=12\mathrm{nS}(E_{\mathrm{eff}}-V)$. This weighted mean follows simply by expanding and regrouping the two current terms; it assumes additive Ohmic contributions and a positive total electrical conductance. At $V=E_{\mathrm{eff}}$, the inward-positive individual electric currents areThe potassium contribution is outward and the sodium contribution inward. Equal and opposite electric currents give $I_{\mathrm{total}}=0$; neither pathway has stopped transporting its ions. The calculation treats two distinct pathways. Applying it to one mixed-species ion channel would additionally require a justified decomposition into independent Ohmic contributions; a general mixed-channel reversal potential cannot be obtained by assuming those hypotheses silently.

This is an instantaneous balance of the specified passive electric currents. It would be the stationary voltage of a passive capacitance model containing only these constant pathways and no applied electric current, but it is not a complete prediction of a living cell's resting membrane potential. Other electric currents, voltage-dependent gating, and pumps involved in active transport can matter. Pumps that transfer net electric charge are electrogenic and contribute their own electric current. See Purves et al.: functional properties of the sodium/potassium pump.

The toy model holds ion concentrations and therefore the stipulated reversal potentials fixed. Continuing inward sodium and outward potassium transport would change finite reservoirs unless active transport or external control maintained them. Transport can be a small fraction of the reservoir's ions over a short interval, making fixed concentrations a useful approximation; it is not a claim that the reservoirs never change. See Gerstner et al., Neuronal Dynamics (2014), §2.1: equilibrium potentials, channel currents and maintained gradients.

A reversal potential makes the effect of opening an ion channel predictable from the present membrane potential. The same open pathway can carry inward or outward electric current as $V$ crosses its reversal potential. The two-pathway example reveals a particularly useful distinction: zero net charge transfer can coexist with continuing exchange of different substances. That distinction connects membrane transport to electric current measurements without mistaking electrical balance for thermodynamic equilibrium.

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.