MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786691435 · doi:10.1101/246561

Deciphering the contribution of oriens-lacunosum/moleculare (OLM) cells to intrinsic theta rhythms using biophysical local field potential (LFP) models

2018· preprint· en· W2786691435 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandra Pierri Chatzikalymniou, Frances K. Skinner

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLocal field potentialNeuroscienceHippocampusInhibitory postsynaptic potentialPlace cellRhythmComputer scienceBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Oscillations in local field potentials (LFPs) commonly occur and analyses of them fuel brain function hypotheses. An understanding of the cellular correlates and pathways affecting LFPs is needed but many overlapping pathways in vivo makes this difficult to achieve. A prevalent LFP rhythm in the hippocampus is ‘theta’ (3-12 Hz). Theta rhythms emerge intrinsically in an in vitro whole hippocampus preparation and thus can be produced by local interactions between interneurons and pyramidal (PYR) cells. Overlapping pathways are much reduced in this preparation making it possible to decipher the contribution of different cell types to LFP generation. We focus on oriens-lacunosum/moleculare (OLM) cells as a major class of interneurons in the hippocampus. They can influence PYR cells through two distinct pathways, (i) by direct inhibition of PYR cell distal dendrites, and (ii) by indirect disinhibition of PYR cell proximal dendrites by inhibiting bistratified cells (BiCs) that target them. We use previous inhibitory network models and build biophysical LFP models using volume conductor theory. We assess the effect of OLM cells to ongoing intrinsic LFP theta rhythms by directly comparing our model LFP features with experiment. We find that robust LFP theta responses adhering to reproducible experimental criteria occur only for particular connectivities between OLM cells and BiCs. Decomposition of the LFP reveals that OLM cell inputs onto the PYR cell regulate robustness of LFP responses without affecting average power and that the robust response depends on co-activation of distal inhibition and basal excitation. We use our models to estimate the spatial extent of the region generating LFP theta rhythms, leading us to predict that about 22,000 PYR cells participate in generating the LFP theta rhythm. Besides allowing us to understand OLM cells’ contributions to intrinsic theta rhythms, our work can drive hypothesis developments of cellular contributions in vivo . Author Summary Oscillatory local field potentials (LFPs) are extracellularly recorded potentials that are widely used to interpret information processing in the brain. For example, theta LFP rhythms (3-12 Hz) are correlated with memory processing and it is known that particular inhibitory cell types control their existence. As such, it is critical for us to appreciate how various cell types contribute to the characteristics of LFP rhythms. A precise biophysical modeling scheme linking activity at the cellular level and the recorded signal has been established. However, it is difficult to assess cellular contributions in vivo because of many spatiotemporally overlapping pathways that prevent the unambiguous separation of signals. Using an in vitro preparation that exhibits intrinsic theta (3-12 Hz) rhythms and where there is much less overlap, we build biophysical LFP models to explore cell contributions to ongoing intrinsic theta rhythms. We uncover distinct contributions from different cell types and show that robust theta rhythms depend specifically on one of the cell types. We are able to determine this because our LFP models have direct links with experiment and we are able to perform thousands of simulations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207