Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Brief Communications Arising
  • Published:

Neurophysiology

Hodgkin and Huxley model — still standing? (Reply)

Abstract

McCormick et al.1 question whether the rapid onset and highly variable thresholds of action potentials2 are genuine features of cortical action-potential generators — that is, whether they reflect the voltage-dependence of the underlying sodium currents. Instead, they consider these features to be epiphenomena, reflecting lateral currents from a remote initiation site, and, contrary to direct evidence3, they assume that sodium currents show canonical kinetics.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McCormick, D. A., Shu, Y. & Yu, Y. Nature 445, 10.1038/nature05523 (2007).

  2. Naundorf, B., Wolf, F. & Volgushev, M. Nature 440, 1060–1063 (2006).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Baranauskas, G. & Martina, M. J. Neurosci. 26, 671–684 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Spira, M. E., Oren, R., Dormann, A., Ilouz, N. & Lev, S. Cell Mol. Neurobiol. 21, 591–604 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lacas-Gervais, S. et al. J. Cell Biol. 166, 983–990 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rush, A. M., Dib-Hajj, S. D. & Waxman, S. G. J. Physiol. 564, 803–815 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Colbert, C. M. & Pan, E. Nature Neurosci. 5, 533–538 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ruben, P. C., Ilscher, S. U., Williams, S. R. & Stuart, G. J. Soc. Neurosci. abstr. 476.2 (2003).

  9. Waters, J., Schaefer, A. & Sakmann, B. Progr. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 87, 145–170 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fourcaud-Trocme, N., Hansel, D., van Vreeswijk, C. & Brunel, N. J. Neurosci. 23, 11628–11640 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Naundorf, B., Geisel, T. & Wolf, F. J. Comput. Neurosci. 18, 297–309 (2005).

    Article  MathSciNet  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Silberberg, G., Bethge, M., Markram, H., Pawelzik, K. & Tsodyks, M. J. Neurophysiol. 91, 704–709 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Williams, P. E., Mechler, F., Gordon, J., Shapley, R. & Hawken, M. J. J. Neurosci. 24, 8278–8288 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fred Wolf.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Naundorf, B., Wolf, F. & Volgushev, M. Hodgkin and Huxley model — still standing? (Reply). Nature 445, E2–E3 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05534

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05534

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing