MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791862730 · doi:10.1113/jp275240

Origin of heterogeneous spiking patterns from continuously distributed ion channel densities: a computational study in spinal dorsal horn neurons

2018· article· en· W2791862730 on OpenAlexafffund
Arjun Balachandar, Steven A. Prescott

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation
KeywordsNeuroscienceIon channelNeuronDorsumBiologyElectrophysiologyPotassium channelTonic (physiology)Spinal cordAnatomyBiophysicsReceptorGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key points Distinct spiking patterns may arise from qualitative differences in ion channel expression (i.e. when different neurons express distinct ion channels) and/or when quantitative differences in expression levels qualitatively alter the spike generation process. We hypothesized that spiking patterns in neurons of the superficial dorsal horn (SDH) of spinal cord reflect both mechanisms. We reproduced SDH neuron spiking patterns by varying densities of KV1‐ and A‐type potassium conductances. Plotting the spiking patterns that emerge from different density combinations revealed spiking‐pattern regions separated by boundaries (bifurcations). This map suggests that certain spiking pattern combinations occur when the distribution of potassium channel densities straddle boundaries, whereas other spiking patterns reflect distinct patterns of ion channel expression. The former mechanism may explain why certain spiking patterns co‐occur in genetically identified neuron types. We also present algorithms to predict spiking pattern proportions from ion channel density distributions, and vice versa. Abstract Neurons are often classified by spiking pattern. Yet, some neurons exhibit distinct patterns under subtly different test conditions, which suggests that they operate near an abrupt transition, or bifurcation. A set of such neurons may exhibit heterogeneous spiking patterns not because of qualitative differences in which ion channels they express, but rather because quantitative differences in expression levels cause neurons to operate on opposite sides of a bifurcation. Neurons in the spinal dorsal horn, for example, respond to somatic current injection with patterns that include tonic, single, gap, delayed and reluctant spiking. It is unclear whether these patterns reflect five cell populations (defined by distinct ion channel expression patterns), heterogeneity within a single population, or some combination thereof. We reproduced all five spiking patterns in a computational model by varying the densities of a low‐threshold (KV1‐type) potassium conductance and an inactivating (A‐type) potassium conductance and found that single, gap, delayed and reluctant spiking arise when the joint probability distribution of those channel densities spans two intersecting bifurcations that divide the parameter space into quadrants, each associated with a different spiking pattern. Tonic spiking likely arises from a separate distribution of potassium channel densities. These results argue in favour of two cell populations, one characterized by tonic spiking and the other by heterogeneous spiking patterns. We present algorithms to predict spiking pattern proportions based on ion channel density distributions and, conversely, to estimate ion channel density distributions based on spiking pattern proportions. The implications for classifying cells based on spiking pattern are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations31
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207