MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015385604 · doi:10.1101/2020.04.09.030239

Single-neuron models linking electrophysiology, morphology and transcriptomics across cortical cell types

2020· preprint· en· W3015385604 on OpenAlexaff
Anirban Nandi, Thomas Chartrand, Werner Van Geit, Anatoly Buchin, Zizhen Yao, Soo Yeun Lee, Yina Wei, Brian Kalmbach, Brian Lee, Ed S. Lein, Jim Berg, Uygar Sümbül, Christof Koch, Bosiljka Tasic, Costas A. Anastassiou

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Supercomputing Center, Korea Institute of Science and Technology InformationOffice of ScienceBoard of the Swiss Federal Institutes of TechnologyNational Energy Research Scientific Computing CenterU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsNeuroscienceElectrophysiologyComputational modelCell typeComputer scienceVisual cortexRobustness (evolution)NeuronBiologyArtificial intelligenceBiological systemCellGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Identifying the cell types constituting brain circuits is a fundamental question in neuroscience and motivates the generation of taxonomies based on electrophysiological, morphological and molecular single cell properties. Establishing the correspondence across data modalities and understanding the underlying principles has proven challenging. Bio-realistic computational models offer the ability to probe cause-and-effect and have historically been used to explore phenomena at the single-neuron level. Here we introduce a computational optimization workflow used for the generation and evaluation of more than 130 million single neuron models with active conductances. These models were based on 230 in vitro electrophysiological experiments followed by morphological reconstruction from the mouse visual cortex. We show that distinct ion channel conductance vectors exist that distinguish between major cortical classes with passive and h-channel conductances emerging as particularly important for classification. Next, using models of genetically defined classes, we show that differences in specific conductances predicted from the models reflect differences in gene expression in excitatory and inhibitory cell types as experimentally validated by single-cell RNA-sequencing. The differences in these conductances, in turn, explain many of the electrophysiological differences observed between cell types. Finally, we show the robustness of the herein generated single-cell models as representations and realizations of specific cell types in face of biological variability and optimization complexity. Our computational effort generated models that reconcile major single-cell data modalities that define cell types allowing for causal relationships to be examined. Highlights Generation and evaluation of more than 130 million single-cell models with active conductances along the reconstructed morphology faithfully recapitulate the electrophysiology of 230 in vitro experiments. Optimized ion channel conductances along the cellular morphology (‘all-active’) are characteristic of model complexity and offer enhanced biophysical realism. Ion channel conductance vectors of all-active models classify transcriptomically defined cell-types. Cell type differences in ion channel conductances predicted by the models correlate with experimentally measured single-cell gene expression differences in inhibitory (Pvalb, Sst, Htr3a) and excitatory (Nr5a1, Rbp4) classes. A set of ion channel conductances identified by comparing between cell type model populations explain electrophysiology differences between these types in simulations and brain slice experiments. All-active models recapitulate multimodal properties of excitatory and inhibitory cell types offering a systematic and causal way of linking differences between them.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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