Talk:Patch clamp

message: Hope this image of the four patch configurations helps. 222.152.90.238 (talk) 09:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Added an Image

message: Most of this article was cut-and-pasted on Feb 22, 2005 from the voltage clamp article as part of an attempt to clean up that article. Anyone interested in the history of this article should therefore look at the voltage clamp history page prior to that date. I did not write this article. I have a limited knowledge of electrophysiology, but I believe there are several errors in the article. I will try to fix them to the best of my ability, but it may take a few days.
Sayeth 21:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed errors, as far as I know, and added image. If anyone has an actual picture of a patch clamped cell, that would be great for the intro portion. Sayeth 20:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Added Whole-cell to outside-out diagram 12/06/2007 Schmoozy  —Preceding comment was added at 19:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of orginal content

message: This technique is commonly known as "Patch Clamping" or "To Patch Clamp". 
However, the term "Patch Clamp" is also commonly taken to mean the specific 
instrument with which you "Patch".
See 
http://www.cairn-research.co.uk/systems/prod_patch1.html
or 
http://www.moleculardevices.com/pages/instruments/cn_axopatch200b.html 
For examples of Patch Clamps.
:I agree with this, that the page name should be changed to reflect more the technique ("Patch Clamping", or "Patch Clamp Technique"), rather than the instrument used to "patch". Trb9 (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name? 

message: Not sure if I agree with the perforated patch section: I've recorded for several hours with gramicidin perforations without any obvious loss of the cell's properties, ie. longer than in whole-cell configuration. Would be nice to see a source for this statement?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.216.34 (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct and I've made the necessary changes. I'm not sure what gave the original editor the idea the perforated patches are unstable. --Dpryan (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perforated patch 

message: "This has the advantage of reducing the dialysis of the cell that occurs in whole cell recordings, but also has several disadvantages. First, the access *resistance is higher* (access resistance being the sum of the electrode resistance and the resistance at the electrode-cell junction). This will decrease current resolution, increase recording noise, and magnify any series resistance error."
Why does the access resistance become higher instead of lower? Higher in comparison to whole cell recording? Or in comparison to cell attached recording without gramicidin? I suppose the component "electrode-cell junction" is due to the change of resistance (?).
And why is a high resistance a disadvantage?
As far as I understood a high access resistance is intended ("Gigaseal") to prevent ions from flowing between membrane and electrode and over the glass of the electrode. (The resistance of the pipette-solution and the silver electrode should (of course) be small.)
I would be very glad to get this explaned as I am a beginner in this subject.
:Hopefully, I have revised the page so as to answer these questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: Perforated patch 

message: Another editor has raised a question here on my talk, about which image file would be better to show a single channel recording. The files in question are :File:Single channel.png, which is on the page now, and :File:V-clamp-GlyR.jpg, which is the alternative. My thoughts, and the other editor's concerns, are explained at the link in my talk. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single channel image file 

message: * http://www.neuroinf.de/kw_storage/patch_clamp_recording Patch clamp recording  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.229.12 (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Dead Link