On Sep 3, 1:09 pm, r norman <r_s_nor... from comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:39:47 -0700 (PDT), "pennsylvaniaj... from gmail.com"
>> <pennsylvaniaj... from gmail.com> wrote:
> >What equation is used to find the membrane voltage in a neuron?
>> >eq1. membrane voltage = membrane current x specific membrane
> >resistance x (1 - Exp ^ (-time/tau).
>> >eq2. membrane voltage = (1/capacitance) x (current x voltage/
>> >eq1 from "The Neuron cell and Molecular Biology" I.B. Levitan & L.K>
> >Kaczmarek, 3rd ed.
> >eq2 from Principles of Neural Science", Kandel, Schwartz, Jessell, 4th
>> >They both are talking about the patch clamp technique.
>> Thumbing through Kandel et al. 4th ed. chapters 7. 8, and 9 I can't
> find anything at all like your eq. 2. That is a good thing because
> your eq. 2 doesn't make any sense at all and would never appear in
> that or any other text.
>> The simple fact of physics is that membrane current is capacitative
> current plus ionic current. Writing out the equations for those two
> current components in terms of voltage you get
>> Im = C dVm/dt + Vm/Rm
> where Im is total membrane current,
> Vm is membrane potential
> Rm is membrane resistance.
>> If you know Im, then Vm is the solution to this differential equation.
>> Under voltage clamp conditions when Vm is constant, then dVm/dt is
> zero so Im = Vm/Rm or Vm = Im Rm, which is something similar to your
> Eq. 1 without the exponential stuff.
>> If you are NOT in voltage clamp and pass a rectangular current pulse
> through the membrane, the voltage will vary as the solution to the
> differential equation and you get your Eq. 1 including the exponential
> stuff. This has nothing whatsoever to do with patch clamp.
>> I can't imagine where you got Eq. 2. Could you provide a page number?
Sorry for the error. I made several errors, one being the
reference. I was solving the equation: current - voltage/resistance =
Capacitance times dv/dt using a Mathematica. It came about using the
book "Biophsics of Computation by C. Koch, 1999. See fig. 1.3 on page
11. The result that I got from the program came from a newsgroup,
from 5/7/2005. When I was reading more about this I ran into the the
other equation, and that made me question from way back in 2005.
Sorry for the error.
Thanks for you help and patience.