Divergent Excitability of GABAergic Neurons Derived from Bipolar Disorder Patients Shapes Energy Shifts of Network Dynamics, possibly mimicking mania and depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Bipolar disorder (BD) is characterized by fluctuating mood states, yet the cellular and circuit-level mechanisms distinguishing lithium-responsive (LR) from non-responsive (NR) patients remain elusive. We derived dentate gyrus granule neurons and GABAergic interneurons from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) of BD patients stratified by lithium response, and from healthy controls. Using patch-clamp electrophysiology, we assessed intrinsic excitability. We further developed a computational model simulating large-scale neuronal networks based on patient-derived electrophysiological properties and ion channel conductance distributions. Granule neurons from both LR and NR patients exhibited hyperexcitability compared to controls. However, GABAergic neurons showed a striking divergence: LR neurons were hyperexcitable, while NR neurons were hypoexcitable. Transcriptomic profiling revealed distinct molecular signatures between NR and LR neurons, including dysregulation of GABA receptor genes ( GABRR1 ). Computational simulations over 10,000 iterations, mimicking long-term network activity, revealed that dentate granule neuron changes alone failed to recapitulate netwrok shifts between global hyperexcitability and global hypoexcitability. Networks incorporating only granule neuron phenotypes entered persistent hyper- or hypoactive states, depending on lithium response. Remarkably, when GABAergic neuron phenotypes were added to the model, both LR and NR networks exhibited spontaneous transitions between high and low activity states, that may be associated with the mood episodes that the patients exhibit. Control networks did not show such bistability. We, therefore, conclude that GABAergic neuronal excitability is a key determinant of lithium responsiveness in BD and critically shapes the emergence of state-shift dynamics in neural networks. These findings suggest that restoring excitatory/inhibitory (E/I) balance via targeted modulation of interneuron function may offer novel therapeutic avenues for BD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".