Thinking About the Nerve Impulse: The Prospects for the Development of a Comprehensive Account of Nerve Impulse Propagation.
Hodgkin-Huxley model
action potential
complete representation
comprehensive framework
comprehensive modeling
model as tool
nerve impulse propagation
soliton model
Journal
Frontiers in cellular neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-5102
Titre abrégé: Front Cell Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101477935
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
13
11
2018
accepted:
24
04
2019
entrez:
4
6
2019
pubmed:
4
6
2019
medline:
4
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Currently, a scientific debate is ongoing about modeling nerve impulse propagation. One of the models discussed is the celebrated Hodgkin-Huxley model of the action potential, which is central to the electricity-centered conception of the nerve impulse that dominates contemporary neuroscience. However, this model cannot represent the nerve impulse completely, since it does not take into account non-electrical manifestations of the nerve impulse for which there is ample experimental evidence. As a result, alternative models of nerve impulse propagation have been proposed in contemporary (neuro)scientific literature. One of these models is the Heimburg-Jackson model, according to which the nerve impulse is an electromechanical density pulse in the neural membrane. This model is usually contrasted with the Hodgkin-Huxley model and is supposed to potentially be able to replace the latter. However, instead of contrasting these models of nerve impulse propagation, another approach integrates these models in a general unifying model. This general unifying model, the Engelbrecht model, is developed to unify all relevant manifestations of the nerve impulse and their interaction(s). Here, we want to contribute to the debate about modeling nerve impulse propagation by conceptually analyzing the Engelbrecht model. Combining the results of this conceptual analysis with insights from philosophy of science, we make recommendations for the study of nerve impulse propagation. The first conclusion of this analysis is that attempts to develop models that represent the nerve impulse accurately and completely appear unfeasible. Instead, models are and should be used as tools to study nerve impulse propagation for varying purposes, representing the nerve impulse accurately and completely enough to achieve the specified goals. The second conclusion is that integrating distinct models into a general unifying model that provides a consistent picture of nerve impulse propagation is impossible due to the distinct purposes for which they are developed and the conflicting assumptions these purposes often require. Instead of explaining nerve impulse propagation with a single general unifying model, it appears advisable to explain this complex phenomenon using a 'mosaic' framework of models in which each model provides a partial explanation of nerve impulse propagation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31156394
doi: 10.3389/fncel.2019.00208
pmc: PMC6529593
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
208Références
Nature. 1976 Apr 29;260(5554):799-802
pubmed: 1083489
J Hist Biol. 1997 Spring;30(1):55-89
pubmed: 11618980
J Hist Neurosci. 1998 Dec;7(3):201-18
pubmed: 11623843
J Physiol. 1952 Aug;117(4):500-44
pubmed: 12991237
J Gen Physiol. 1957 Jul 20;40(6):859-85
pubmed: 13439165
J Gen Physiol. 1964 May;47:965-74
pubmed: 14155438
Science. 1964 Sep 11;145(3637):1148-54
pubmed: 14173403
J Physiol. 1952 Apr;116(4):424-48
pubmed: 14946712
J Physiol. 1952 Apr;116(4):449-72
pubmed: 14946713
J Physiol. 1952 Apr;116(4):473-96
pubmed: 14946714
J Physiol. 1952 Apr;116(4):497-506
pubmed: 14946715
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Jul 12;102(28):9790-5
pubmed: 15994235
Biophys J. 1961 Jul;1(6):445-66
pubmed: 19431309
Prog Neurobiol. 2009 Jun;88(2):104-13
pubmed: 19482227
J Neurosci. 2012 Oct 10;32(41):14064-73
pubmed: 23055474
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986 Jan;83(2):508-12
pubmed: 2417247
Annu Rev Neurosci. 1988;11:455-95
pubmed: 2452597
Phys Biol. 2014 Aug 26;11(5):051001
pubmed: 25156965
Nature. 1989 Jun 22;339(6226):597-603
pubmed: 2543931
Nat Commun. 2015 Mar 30;6:6697
pubmed: 25819404
Biophys Chem. 2016 Sep;216:51-59
pubmed: 27448851
Sci Am. 2018 Mar 20;318(4):60-67
pubmed: 29557966
Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr. 2018 Oct;1860(10):2145-2153
pubmed: 29679540
Prog Neurobiol. 2018 Oct;169:172-185
pubmed: 29981394
Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2018 Dec;17(6):1771-1783
pubmed: 30032474
Front Mol Neurosci. 2018 Sep 04;11:319
pubmed: 30233318
J Physiol. 1985 Dec;369:229-48
pubmed: 4093881
J Physiol. 1968 Feb;194(3):745-93
pubmed: 5636997
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1984 Sep;81(17):5594-8
pubmed: 6089214
Nature. 1984 Nov 8-14;312(5990):121-7
pubmed: 6209577
Nature. 1980 Oct 2;287(5781):447-9
pubmed: 6253802
Jpn J Physiol. 1982;32(1):69-81
pubmed: 6281506
Brain Res Bull. 1998 Jul 15;46(5):381-407
pubmed: 9739001