Use of a Neural Circuit Probe to Validate in silico Predictions of Inhibitory Connections

Understanding how neuronal signals propagate in local network is an important step in understanding information processing. As a result, spike trains recorded with Multi-electrode Arrays (MEAs) have been widely used to study behaviors of neural connections. Studying the dynamics of neuronal networks requires the identification of both excitatory and inhibitory connections. The detection of excitatory relationships can robustly be inferred by characterizing the statistical relationships of neural spike trains. However, the identification of inhibitory relationships is more difficult: distinguishing endogenous low firing rates from active inhibition is not obvious. In this paper, we propose an in silico interventional procedure that makes predictions about the effect of stimulating or inhibiting single neurons on other neurons, and thereby gives the ability to accurately identify inhibitory causal relationships. To experimentally test these predictions, we have developed a Neural Circuit Probe (NCP) that delivers drugs transiently and reversibly on individually identified neurons to assess their contributions to the neural circuit behavior. With the help of NCP, three inhibitory connections identified by our in silico modeling were validated through real interventional experiments. Together, these methods provide a basis for mapping complete neural circuits.

[1]  Il Memming Park,et al.  Encoding and decoding in parietal cortex during sensorimotor decision-making , 2014, Nature Neuroscience.

[2]  György Buzsáki,et al.  Neural inhibition , 2007, Scholarpedia.

[3]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Spatio-temporal correlations and visual signalling in a complete neuronal population , 2008, Nature.

[4]  Uri T Eden,et al.  A point process framework for relating neural spiking activity to spiking history, neural ensemble, and extrinsic covariate effects. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[5]  Liam Paninski,et al.  Model-Based Decoding, Information Estimation, and Change-Point Detection Techniques for Multineuron Spike Trains , 2011, Neural Computation.

[6]  Kenneth R Tovar,et al.  Amino-Terminal Ligands Prolong NMDA Receptor-Mediated EPSCs , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[7]  R. Reid,et al.  Predicting Every Spike A Model for the Responses of Visual Neurons , 2001, Neuron.

[8]  Connor Randall,et al.  Recording action potential propagation in single axons using multi-electrode arrays , 2017, bioRxiv.

[9]  Nicolas Brunel,et al.  How Connectivity, Background Activity, and Synaptic Properties Shape the Cross-Correlation between Spike Trains , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[10]  Ian H. Stevenson,et al.  Bayesian Inference of Functional Connectivity and Network Structure From Spikes , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[11]  M. Cohen,et al.  Measuring and interpreting neuronal correlations , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.

[12]  George L. Gerstein,et al.  Neural assemblies: technical issues, analysis, and modeling , 2001, Neural Networks.

[13]  Sheila Nirenberg,et al.  A Virtual Retina for Studying Population Coding , 2013, PloS one.

[14]  E J Chichilnisky,et al.  Prediction and Decoding of Retinal Ganglion Cell Responses with a Probabilistic Spiking Model , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[15]  Jerome Pine,et al.  Extracellular potentials in low-density dissociated neuronal cultures , 2002, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[16]  Yasser Roudi,et al.  Correlations and Functional Connections in a Population of Grid Cells , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[17]  Lee E. Miller,et al.  Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience Systems Neuroscience , 2022 .

[18]  Lee E Miller,et al.  Inferring functional connections between neurons , 2008, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[19]  R. Quian Quiroga,et al.  Unsupervised Spike Detection and Sorting with Wavelets and Superparamagnetic Clustering , 2004, Neural Computation.