IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Temperature and electrophysiology?

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Mon Dec 27 12:51:06 EST 2004


"r norman" <rsn_ at _comcast.net> wrote in message news:ppd0t0l3kv1tjatr8j95rtdg42l6lmmop4 at 4ax.com...
| On 27 Dec 2004 08:01:23 -0800, tehgabriel at web.de (tomte) wrote:
|
| >Hi!
| >
| >I had a debate with a collegue of mine, wether an increase of
| >temperature from 34.5°C to 36°C may lead to significantly different
| >effects in whole-cell patch-clamp recordings (I refer to experiments
| >on rat brain slices).
| >Of course there's no question that one may obtain different results
| >when experiments were done at 10°C or 20°C. But what's the situation
| >in the special case i mentioned at the beginning (sligthly
| >temp.difference in a regime close to body temperature).
| >What's your opinion/experience?
| >
| >Any comment would be appreciated
| >Cheers,
| >Thomas
| >
| >p.s.:
| >I would be very grateful for references
|
| A process with a Q10 of 2 (rate doubles for a 10C increase in
| temperature) would change by less than 4% for a 1/2 degree change.  If
| the process were even more  temperature sensitive, a Q10 of 5, say, it
| would change by about 8% for the same temperature change.
|
| A change of several degrees would produce small but noticeable
| changes.  But a fraction of a degree is another story. In most cases
| it would be hard to control the temperature to such a fine degree.
|
| Then, note that body temperature is not really constant, but
| fluctuates with time of day, metabolic state, health, etc.  Even brain
| temperature in mammals, generally regulated much more finely than core
| body temperature, will fluctuate. It is unlikely that small changes
| will produce any significant changes in function that are meaningful
| to the cell even though they may be detected by a cell physiologist.

Hi Dr. Norman,

Before I "disagree", do I need to express
the esteem in which I hold you? :-]

It's =way= up-there.

But I do =Respectfully= disagree that even
the slightest variation of temperature is not
significant with respect to the 3-D energy-
dynamics that occur within nervous sys-
tems.

Yes, the brain is awesomely vasculated,
and that carries off excess heat, but
even such can only proceed in accord
with the body temp set-point, which is
varied in "fever" dynamics.

This's important be-cause of the long-
standing known facts of the shifting of
the black body power spectrum toward
its high-frequency 'end' as TempK is
increased. This corresponds rigorously
to a variation in "vibrational" frequency
at the 'atomic' level, and the rigorously-
correlated functional variability stands
verified [if, thus far, unrecognized as be-
ing what it, in fact, is :-]

At the level of molecular dynamics small
changes in "vibrational" frequency =must=
result in relatively-large variations in func-
tionality. [The "shampoo experiment" dis-
closes [rigorously] why it must be so.]

As I've reiterated in long-former posts,
it's a virtual certainty that this is some
of why "fever" is a functional "mode"
that's been 'engineered' into the Biology
by evolutionary dynamics.

One can even perceive the "washed-
out-ness" that's happening within one
while one is enduring "fever" -- I mean,
one can literally perceive that one's
thought processes, for instance, are
not occurring 'normally' -- that they
are "washed-out" -- that "thought" be-
comes relatively 'powerless'.

There has to be something of great
worth for it to be so routinely "pur-
chased" at so great a "price".

And what's going on is falt-out-ob-
vious within 3-D energydynamics
that I've not yet discussed. [I was
going to discuss them if I'd not been
'tossed-out' of sci.physics.research.]

The DNA is "addressed" differentially
with respect to body temp, and, per-
haps more-importantly, so is the DNA
and molecular processes of disease
agents.

Again, my hypothesis is that elevations
in body temp impose disorder upon
the molecular functionalities of disease
agents, which, in and of itself, because
it's so 'atomically'-generalized, is prob-
ably insufficient to get the disease-de-
struction job done, but it definitely
makes the job of immune-system ag-
ents easier by, literally, "shoving"
things in the direction of disorder [in
the direction of WDB2T] -- in this,
literally pointing-the-Direction in
which immune-system molecular dyn-
amics are to 'move'.

Some new hardware needs to be
developed to do it, but everything
that I've discussed in this post is
scannable.

Some of what's in my "disagreement" is
in-there be-cause of what's been my
Failure to carry the discussion of NDT
and TH forward sufficiently.

I've been carefully monitoring the col-
lective amygdalar "speed-limit", trying
not to "violate" it, but my doing so has
kept the discussion from getting, rapidly,
to where it, ultimately, needs to "go".

Part of it is that I rewrote Physics, but
no one else understands that rewritten
stuff yet.

[It'd be easier in-person. :-]

Cheers, Dr. Norman, ken [k. p. collins]






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net