| Literature DB >> 29718802 |
Divyansh Mittal1, Rishikesh Narayanan1.
Abstract
Biological heterogeneities are ubiquitous and play critical roles in the emergence of physiology at multiple scales. Although neurons in layer II (LII) of the medial entorhinal cortex (MEC) express heterogeneities in channel properties, the impact of such heterogeneities on the robustness of their cellular-scale physiology has not been assessed. Here, we performed a 55-parameter stochastic search spanning nine voltage- or calcium-activated channels to assess the impact of channel heterogeneities on the concomitant emergence of 10 in vitro electrophysiological characteristics of LII stellate cells (SCs). We generated 150,000 models and found a heterogeneous subpopulation of 449 valid models to robustly match all electrophysiological signatures. We employed this heterogeneous population to demonstrate the emergence of cellular-scale degeneracy in SCs, whereby disparate parametric combinations expressing weak pairwise correlations resulted in similar models. We then assessed the impact of virtually knocking out each channel from all valid models and demonstrate that the mapping between channels and measurements was many-to-many, a critical requirement for the expression of degeneracy. Finally, we quantitatively predict that the spike-triggered average of SCs should be endowed with theta-frequency spectral selectivity and coincidence detection capabilities in the fast gamma-band. We postulate this fast gamma-band coincidence detection as an instance of cellular-scale-efficient coding, whereby SC response characteristics match the dominant oscillatory signals in LII MEC. The heterogeneous population of valid SC models built here unveils the robust emergence of cellular-scale physiology despite significant channel heterogeneities, and forms an efficacious substrate for evaluating the impact of biological heterogeneities on entorhinal network function. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We assessed the impact of heterogeneities in channel properties on the robustness of cellular-scale physiology of medial entorhinal cortical stellate neurons. We demonstrate that neuronal models with disparate channel combinations were endowed with similar physiological characteristics, as a consequence of the many-to-many mapping between channel properties and the physiological characteristics that they modulate. We predict that the spike-triggered average of stellate cells should be endowed with theta-frequency spectral selectivity and fast gamma-band coincidence detection capabilities.Entities:
Keywords: coincidence detection; gamma frequency; heterogeneity; membrane potential oscillations; membrane resonance, spike-triggered average
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29718802 PMCID: PMC6101195 DOI: 10.1152/jn.00136.2018
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neurophysiol ISSN: 0022-3077 Impact factor: 2.714
Fig. 1.Base model and measurements. A: schematic representation of a single-compartment model for medial entorhinal cortex (MEC) layer II stellate cell specifying inward (inward arrows) and outward (outward arrows) currents. Inset: 6-state kinetic model of SK channels. Parametric values were α = 10 µM/s, β = 0.5/s, γ = 600/s, and δ = 400/s. B–I: the 10 physiologically relevant measurements (highlighted in cyan) used to characterize stellate cells. B: resting membrane potential (VRMP) and its standard deviation (SD) were computed by taking the mean and SD, respectively, of the membrane potential (Vm) between 5- and 6-s duration (window specified in the figure) when no current was injected. All the other measurements were performed after the model settled at its VRMP at 6 s. C: Sag ratio (Sag) was measured as the ratio of the steady-state membrane potential deflection (VSS) to peak membrane potential deflection (Vpeak) in the voltage response of the model to a hyperpolarizing step current of 200 pA for a duration of 1,000 ms. D and E: voltage response of the model to a step current of 100 pA (D) or 400 pA (E) for a stimulus duration of 500 ms was used to measure the number of action potentials (N100 or N400) elicited for the respective current injection. F: input resistance (Rin) computation. F, left: 1,000-ms-long step currents from −100 pA to 100 pA were injected into the cell in steps of 20 pA to record the steady-state voltage response (black circles at the end of each trace). F, right: steady-state voltage response vs. injected current (V–I) plot obtained from the traces on the left panel. The slope of a linear fit to the V–I plot defined Rin. G: amplitude of action potential (VAP) was measured as the difference between the peak voltage achieved during an action potential and VRMP. H: impedance-based measurements. H, top: Chirp current stimulus injected into the cell. H, middle: voltage response of the model to chirp stimulus injection. The arrow depicts the location of the maximal response. H, bottom: impedance amplitude profile showing the resonance frequency (fR) at which the model elicited peak response and resonance strength (QR), the ratio of impedance amplitude at fR to impedance amplitude at 0.5 Hz. I: membrane potential oscillations (MPOs). Shown are representative voltage traces (3-s duration) for different depolarizing current injections (Iinj). The emergence of subthreshold oscillations in the theta range may be observed in traces at intermediate values of Iinj, with the model switching to action potential firing at higher Iinj. The frequency of subthreshold oscillations measured at a perithreshold voltage was defined as fosc, whereas the frequency of membrane potential oscillations obtained with other Iinj was represented by fMPO.
Base value and range of parameters used in generating the model population
| No. | Parameter (Unit) | Description | Base | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximal conductance of NaF | 4.2 | 2.1 | 8.5 | ||
| Half-maximal voltage of activation of NaF | −26.1 | −31.1 | −21.1 | ||
| Slope of activation of NaF | 9.38 | 7.51 | 11.26 | ||
| Scaling factor for activation time constant of NaF | 1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | ||
| Half-maximal voltage of inactivation of NaF | −23.8 | −28.8 | −18.8 | ||
| Slope of inactivation of NaF | 6.1 | 4.9 | 7.3 | ||
| Scaling factor for inactivation time constant of NaF | 1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | ||
| Maximal conductance of KDR | 3.2 | 1.5 | 6.4 | ||
| Half-maximal voltage of activation of KDR | −17.6 | −22.6 | −12.6 | ||
| Slope of activation of KDR | 19.6 | 15.7 | 23.6 | ||
| Scaling factor for activation time constant of KDR | 1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | ||
| Maximal conductance of slow HCN | 33.3 | 16 | 67 | ||
| Ratio of fast to slow HCN maximal conductance | 1.85 | 1.5 | 2.2 | ||
| Half-maximal voltage of activation of fast HCN | 74.2 | 69.2 | 79.2 | ||
| Half-maximal voltage of activation of slow HCN | 2.83 | −2.17 | 7.83 | ||
| Slope of activation of fast HCN | 9.78 | 7.8 | 11.7 | ||
| Slope of activation of slow HCN | 15.9 | 12.7 | 19.1 | ||
| Scaling factor for activation time constant of fast HCN | 1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | ||
| Scaling factor for activation time constant of slow HCN | 1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | ||
| Maximal conductance of NaP | 34 | 17 | 68 | ||
| Half-maximal voltage of activation of NaP | 48.7 | 43.7 | 53.7 | ||
| Slope of activation of NaP | 4.4 | 3.52 | 5.28 | ||
| Scaling factor for activation time constant of NaP | 1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | ||
| Half-maximal voltage of inactivation of NaP | 48.8 | 43.8 | 53.8 | ||
| Slope of inactivation of NaP | 9.9 | 7.9 | 11.9 | ||
| Scaling factor for inactivation time constant of NaP | 1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | ||
| Maximal conductance of KA | 25 | 12.5 | 50 | ||
| Half-maximal voltage of activation of KA | −18.3 | −23.3 | −13.3 | ||
| Slope of activation of KA | 15 | 12 | 18 | ||
| Scaling factor for activation time constant of KA | 1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | ||
| Half-maximal voltage of inactivation of KA | −58 | −63 | −53 | ||
| Slope of inactivation of KA | 8.2 | 6.6 | 9.8 | ||
| Scaling factor for inactivation time constant of KA | 1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | ||
| Maximal conductance of HVA | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.36 | ||
| Half-maximal voltage of activation of HVA | 11.1 | 6.1 | 16.1 | ||
| Slope of activation of HVA | 8.4 | 6.7 | 10.0 | ||
| Scaling factor for activation time constant of HVA | 1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | ||
| Half-maximal voltage of inactivation of HVA | 37 | 32 | 42 | ||
| Slope of inactivation of HVA | 9 | 7.2 | 10.8 | ||
| Scaling factor for inactivation time constant of HVA | 1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | ||
| Maximal conductance of LVA | 90 | 41.9 | 167.6 | ||
| Half-maximal voltage of activation of LVA | −52.4 | −57.4 | −47.4 | ||
| Slope of activation of LVA | 8.2 | 6.5 | 9.8 | ||
| Scaling factor for activation time constant LVA | 1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | ||
| Half-maximal voltage of inactivation of LVA | −88.2 | −93.2 | −83.2 | ||
| Slope of inactivation of LVA | 6.67 | 5.34 | 8.01 | ||
| Scaling factor for inactivation time constant of LVA | 1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | ||
| Maximal conductance of KM | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.25 | ||
| Half-maximal voltage of activation of KM | −40 | −45 | −35 | ||
| Slope of activation of KM | −10 | −8 | −12 | ||
| Scaling factor for activation time constant of KM | 1 | 0.8 | 1.2 | ||
| Maximal conductance of SK | 52 | 26 | 104 | ||
| Specific membrane resistance | 40 | 20 | 80 | ||
| τ | Time constant of cytosolic calcium decay | 78 | 39 | 156 | |
| Specific membrane capacitance | 1 | 0.75 | 1.25 | ||
Whereas conductance values were scaled from 0.5 × to 2 × , scaling factors for time constants were set in the range 0.8 × to 1.2 × , the half-maximal voltages were shifted by 5 mV on either side of their default values, and the slope of the sigmoidal activation/inactivation curves were scaled by 20% on either side of the respective default values. For parameters other than conductance values, these ranges were chosen to match with respective experimental variability.
Physiologically relevant range of LII stellate cell measurements
| No. | Intrinsic Measurement (Unit) | Valid Range |
|---|---|---|
| Resting membrane potential, | −65 to −60 | |
| SD of membrane potential (resting), SD (mV) | <0.01 | |
| Sag ratio | 0.35–0.65 | |
| Input resistance, | 35–65 | |
| Resonance strength, | <3.5 | |
| Resonance frequency, | 3–12 | |
| Perithreshold MPO frequency, | 3–12 | |
| No. of APs for a 100-pA step current for 500 ms, | 0 | |
| No. of APs for a 400-pA step current for 500 ms, | 7–16 | |
| AP amplitude, | >75 |
Experimental bounds on each intrinsic measurement involved in the validation process of stochastically generated models. Although the constraint on the SD of resting membrane potential ensures that there are no membrane potential oscillations at rest, the rest of the bounds were derived from previous electrophysiological measurements (Boehlen et al. 2013; Pastoll et al. 2012).
Fig. 2.A multiparametric stochastic search algorithm yielded stellate cell models with distinct types of robust sub- and suprathreshold oscillations spanning different voltage levels. A–E (top) and F, G (left): voltage traces of model cells showing sub- and suprathreshold membrane potential oscillations (MPOs), when injected with different levels of depolarizing currents (the value of injected current used, Iinj, for each voltage trace is provided in blue text). A–E (bottom) and F–G (right): frequency of MPOs plotted as a function of average membrane potential, Vavg (bottom axis) and MPO amplitude, VMPO (top axis). Plots in A–G constitute data from different model cells, and depict representative features from distinct subpopulations of models. A: robust subthreshold MPOs emerge before the neuron switches to regular spiking activity that manifests when the subthreshold MPOs cross threshold. B: robust subthreshold MPOs emerge before the neuron abruptly switches to firing spike doublets when the subthreshold MPOs cross threshold. C: neuron switches to robust MPOs at perithreshold voltages, with intermittent burst spiking activity. The frequency of burst occurrence increases with increasing current injections. Such models are reminiscent of neurons exhibiting theta skipping, where spikes occur at regular intervals but not on every theta cycle. D: model exhibits robust theta range subthreshold oscillations, but does not directly switch to spiking behavior from MPOs with increased current injection. A range of intermittent current injections results in responses that are bereft of any MPOs. These models eventually switch to regular firing at higher current injections. E: same as D but these models do not switch to firing action potentials after exhibiting theta-range MPOs even at higher depolarization or current injections (until 300-pA depolarizing current). F: these models abruptly switch from firing no action potentials to regular spiking, without any intermediate phase of exhibiting subthreshold oscillations. G: model manifests robust subthreshold oscillations, but switches between subthreshold oscillations and regular spiking with increasing current injections. All these analyses were for current injections ranging from 100 to 300 pA for a total duration of 5 s, of which the last 3-s period is depicted and was used for further analyses.
Fig. 3.Heterogeneous distribution of physiologically relevant measurements in valid medial entorhinal cortex (MEC) layer II stellate cell models obtained after a multiparametric, multiobjective stochastic search. A: bee-swarm plots depicting the distribution of 9 measurements in the 155 valid models. The red rectangle adjacent to each plot depicts the respective median value. The electrophysiologically derived validation bounds for each of these measurements (Table 2) are provided above each plot, depicting that these measurements are indeed within the valid range and that they manifest heterogeneity encompassing a large span within the validity bounds. B: frequency of MPOs for the 155 valid models plotted as a function of average membrane potential of the oscillation, Vavg. C: frequency of MPOs for the 155 valid models plotted as a function of MPO amplitude, VMPO. The two distinct clusters here demarcate sub- and suprathreshold oscillations, with suprathreshold oscillations corresponding to regular action potential firing. For B and C, 21 data points represent each valid model, with each data point obtained with different depolarizing current injections (e.g., Fig. 2). The clusters around 0 Hz in B and C correspond to voltage traces, obtained in response to some values of current injection in a given valid model, that did not manifest sub-/suprathreshold oscillations but elicited transient fluctuations (e.g., the bottom-most voltage trace in Fig. 2). Each model is depicted with a unique marker.
Fig. 4.Distribution of physiologically relevant measurements in valid medial entorhinal cortex (MEC) layer II stellate cell models obtained from 3 independent sets were not significantly different. Bee-swarm plots depicting the distribution of 9 measurements in valid model populations obtained from 3 independent MPMOSS procedures. The rectangle adjacent to each plot depicts the respective median value. Each MPMOSS procedure involved 50,000 randomized picks of the 55 model parameters (Table 1), followed by a validation procedure involving the 10 intrinsic measurements (Table 2). The numbers of valid models obtained from each of the three MPMOSS procedures were 155, 139, and 155. None of the 9 intrinsic measurements depicted here were significantly different across the 3 independent sets (Kruskal-Wallis test, P > 0.05). Pairwise statistical comparisons of these intrinsic measurements across independent sets showed significant difference only between valid model set 1 and valid model set 3 for spike amplitude (VAP; *P = 0.028, Mann-Whitney test). All other measurements across all pairwise comparisons yielded P > 0.05, Mann-Whitney test.
Fig. 5.Disparate combinations of model parameters resulted in similar physiological measurements in 5 randomly chosen valid stellate cell models. A–H: voltage traces and 10 physiologically relevant measurements for 5 randomly chosen valid models obtained after MPMOSS. A: resting membrane potential (VRMP) and its standard deviation (SD). B: Sag ratio. C: input resistance (Rin). D: resonance frequency (fR) and resonance strength (QR). E: number of action potentials for a step current injection of 100 pA for 500 ms (N100). F: amplitude of action potential (VAP). G: number of action potentials for a step current injection of 400 pA for 500 ms (N400). H: perithreshold membrane potential oscillation frequency (fosc). I: normalized values of each of the 55 parameters that were employed in the generation of stellate cell models, shown for the 5 randomly chosen models depicted in A–H. Each parameter was normalized by the respective minimum and maximum values that bound the stochastic search for that parameter (Table 1). Parameters associated with corresponding model traces in A–H are depicted with identically color-coded markers in I. The shaded region between two black lines represents the measured min-max span for each of the 55 parameters across all valid models (not just the 5 chosen models depicted here). It may be noted that all parameters covered almost the entire stretch of their respective bounds (Table 1). The firing patterns observed in G are qualitatively similar to those observed in LII stellate cells (Alonso and Klink 1993; Dickson et al. 2000; Fernandez and White 2008; Khawaja et al. 2007; van der Linden and Lopes da Silva 1998) and quantitatively match the firing rates in these neurons for a 400-pA current injection (Table 2).
Fig. 6.Expression of cellular-scale degeneracy in heterogeneous populations of valid stellate cell models with weak pairwise correlation among parameters. A: heat map of the pairwise Pearson’s correlation coefficient values between 55 parameters (Table 1) for each of the 3 valid model populations (obtained with 3 independent MPMOSS procedures). Insets: respective distribution of the 1,485 unique pairwise correlation coefficient values obtained across the 55 parameters. B and C: heat map of the pairwise distances between model parameters for each of the 3 valid model sets. The lower triangular part of the distance matrix is depicted, with matrix size dependent on the valid model set (set 1: 155 × 155; set 2: 139 × 139; set 3: 155 × 155). Insets: respective distribution of the unique pairwise distance values obtained across the respective valid model population. Plots in B and C, respectively, depict the pairwise normalized Euclidean and the pairwise Mahalanobis distances between model parameters.
Fig. 7.Single-channel virtual knockout models (VKMs) unveiled differential and variable dependence of measurements on individual channels. A–I: change in different measurement values after virtual knockout of each channel from valid models obtained from the MPMOSS algorithm. Shown are percentage changes in resting membrane potential VRMP (A), sag ratio (B), input resistance Rin (C), resonance strength QR (D), resonance frequency fR (E), and perithreshold oscillation frequency fosc (F). Change in number of action potential elicited for 100-pA current injection (N100) is represented as a count (G) as N100 for all valid models was constrained to be zero, whereas changes in the number of action potentials elicited for 400-pA current injection N400 (H) and in action potential amplitude VAP (I) are depicted as percentages. Note that VKMs that spontaneously fired or entered depolarization-induced block were removed from analyses owing to the inability to obtain subthreshold measurements. Consequently, for KDR knockouts NVKM = 103, for KM knockouts NVKM = 349, for SK knockouts NVKM = 412 and all the other channel knockouts NVKM = 449. For A–I, *P < 0.01, **P < 0.001, Wilcoxon rank sum test, assessing if the observed percentage changes were significantly different from a “no change” scenario.
Fig. 8.Measurements from the valid model population predict theta-frequency selectivity and gamma-range coincidence detection window in the spike-triggered average of LII stellate cells. A: voltage response of an example valid model (top) to a zero-mean Gaussian white noise (GWN) current (bottom) of 10-s duration. σnoise = 1.83 nA. B: spike-triggered average (STA) of the 5 valid stellate cell models shown in Fig. 5. Measurements derived from the temporal domain representation of STA were the peak STA current , the total coincidence detection window (CDW) TTCDW, and the effective CDW TECDW. C: the magnitude of the Fourier transform of STA shown in B. Measurements derived from the spectral domain representation of STA were for the STA characteristic frequency fSTA, and the strength of selectivity QSTA. D: bee-swarm plots representing the distribution of the 5 quantitative measures of the STA for all 449 valid models (pooled from all 3 independent sets in Fig. 4). E: impedance phase profiles, and with values of total inductive phase, ΦL, defined as the area under the curve for the leading impedance phase (shaded portion) for 5 selected models. Models in this figure are matched with those in Fig. 5. F: distribution of ΦL for all 449 valid stellate cell models.
Fig. 9.Pairwise correlations across physiological measurements from all valid stellate cell models were variable. A: matrix depicts the pairwise scatterplots (spanning all 449 valid models) between the 14 measurements (8 physiologically relevant measurements, namely VRMP, Sag ratio, Rin, QR, fR, fosc, N400, VAP, in Fig. 1 and the 6 predicted measurements, namely , TECDW, TTCDW, fSTA, QSTA, ΦL, in Fig. 8). Histograms in the bottom row depict the span of the corresponding measurement with reference to their respective min-max ranges. Individual scatterplots are overlaid on a heat map that depicts the pairwise correlation coefficient computed for that scatterplot. B: distribution of the 91 unique correlation coefficient values from scatterplots in A.