Neuroscience seminars

The typical goal of homeostatic mechanisms is to ensure a system operates at or in the vicinity of a stable set point, where a particular measure is relatively constant and stable. Neural firing rate homeostasis is unusual in that a set point of fixed firing rate is at odds with the goal of a neuron to convey information, or produce timed motor responses, which require temporal variations in firing rate. Therefore, for a neuron, a range of firing rates is required for optimal function, which could, for example, be set by a dual system that controls both mean and variance of firing rate. We explore, both via simulations and analysis, how two experimentally measured mechanisms for firing rate homeostasis can cooperate to improve information processing and avoid the pitfall of pulling in different directions when their set points do not appear to match.

There is little consensus on the level of spatial complexity at which dendrites operate. On the one hand, emergent evidence indicates that synapses cluster at micrometer spatial scales. On the other hand, most modelling and network studies ignore dendrites altogether. This dichotomy raises an urgent question: what is the smallest relevant spatial scale for understanding dendritic computation? We have developed a method to construct compartmental models at any level of spatial complexity. Through carefully chosen parameter fits, solvable in the least-squares sense, we obtain accurate reduced compartmental models. Thus, we are able to systematically construct passive as well as active dendrite models at varying degrees of spatial complexity. We evaluate which elements of the dendritic computational repertoire are captured by these models. We show that many canonical elements of the dendritic computational repertoire can be reproduced with few compartments. For instance, for a model to behave as a two-layer network, it is sufficient to fit a reduced model at the soma and at locations at the dendritic tips. In the basal dendrites of an L2/3 pyramidal model, we reproduce the backpropagation of somatic action potentials (APs) with a single dendritic compartment at the tip. Further, we obtain the well-known Ca-spike coincidence detection mechanism in L5 Pyramidal cells with as few as eleven compartments, the requirement being that their spacing along the apical trunk supports AP backpropagation. We also investigate whether afferent spatial connectivity motifs admit simplification by ablating targeted branches and grouping affected synapses onto the next proximal dendrite. We find that voltage in the remaining branches is reproduced if temporal conductance fluctuations stay below a limit that depends on the average difference in input resistance between the ablated branches and the next proximal dendrite. Consequently, when the average conductance load on distal synapses is constant, the dendritic tree can be simplified while appropriately decreasing synaptic weights. When the conductance level fluctuates strongly, for instance through a-priori unpredictable fluctuations in NMDA activation, a constant weight rescale factor cannot be found, and the dendrite cannot be simplified. We have created an open source Python toolbox (NEAT - https://neatdend.readthedocs.io/en/latest/) that automatises the simplification process. A NEST implementation of the reduced models, currently under construction, will enable the simulation of few-compartment models in large-scale networks, thus bridging the gap between cellular and network level neuroscience.

Studying the pathophysiology of late stage Parkinson’s disease (PD) – after the patients have experienced severe neuronal loss – has helped develop various symptomatic treatments for PD (e.g., deep brain stimulation). However, it has been of limited use in developing neuroprotective disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), because DMTs require interventions at much earlier stages of PD when vulnerable neurons are still intact. Because PD patients exhibit various non-motor prodromal symptoms (ie, symptoms that predate diagnosis), understanding the pathophysiology underlying these symptom could lead to earlier diagnosis and intervention. In my talk, I will present a recently elucidated example of how PD pathologies alter the channel biophysics of intact vagal motoneurons (known to be selectively vulnerable in PD) to drive dysautonomia that is reminiscent of prodromal PD. I will discuss how elucidating the pathophysiology of prodromal symptoms can lead to earlier diagnosis through the development of physiological biomarkers for PD.

In this talk series, addiction neuroscientists from across the world share their personal stories/experiences on the beauty of addiction neuroscience and how/why they have decided to invest their scientific life in this field. We hope that this talk series would encourage and support a new generation of young and passionate addiction neuroscientists in different countries to revolutionize the field of addiction medicine.

The neurobiology of decision-making is informed by neurons capable of representing information over time scales of seconds. Such neurons were initially characterized in studies of spatial working memory, motor planning (e.g., Richard Andersen lab) and spatial attention. For decision-making, such neurons emit graded spike rates, that represent the accumulated evidence for or against a choice. They establish the conduit between the formation of the decision and its completion, usually in the form of a commitment to an action, even if provisional. Indeed, many decisions appear to arise through an accumulation of noisy samples of evidence to a terminating threshold, or bound. Previous studies show that single neurons in the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) represent the accumulation of evidence when monkeys make decisions about the direction of random dot motion (RDM) and express their decision with a saccade to the neuron’s preferred target. The mechanism of termination (the bound) is elusive. LIP is interconnected with other brain regions that also display decision-related activity. Whether these areas play roles in the decision process that are similar to or fundamentally different from that of LIP is unclear. I will present new unpublished experiments that begin to resolve these issues by recording from populations of neurons simultaneously in LIP and one of its primary targets, the superior colliculus (SC), while monkeys make difficult perceptual decisions.

(1) We (Grace Lindsay) used convolutional neural nets to model attention, by scaling the input/output function of neurons in an imagenet-trained network according to their selectivity for the feature or object category being attended. While this was effective in improving performance on difficult tasks, it was far less effective in earlier than in later layers. This indicated that neurons selective for a feature in earlier layers did not necessarily drive neurons selective for that feature in later layers. In contrast, applying attention according to the gradient for improving task performance worked well in early as well as late layers. This raises the question whether biological attentional modulation might reflect task requirements and not only the features of the stimuli to be attended. We suggest a simple experiment to answer this question, which we hope to convince an appropriate lab to carry out. (2) In E/I networks, a "paradoxical" response to stimulation has been shown: If the excitatory neurons would be unstable by themselves, but are stabilized by feedback inhibition (an "inhibition-stabilized network", or ISN), then, in response to addition of excitatory input to inhibitory neurons, their steady-state firing rates paradoxically decrease. In circuits with multiple inhibitory cell types, this has been generalized: in an ISN, if there is an added stimulus only to inhibitory cells, there will be a paradoxical change in the net inhibition received by excitatory cells -- e.g., if excitatory firing rates increase, so too will the net inhibition they receive. This does not imply that the firing rates of any particular inhibitory cell type will change paradoxically. Here we (Agostina Palmigiano along with Francesco Fumarola, and experimental work of Dan Mossing in the Adesnik lab) generalize the conditions for a paradoxical firing rate response, including in responses to partial as well as full perturbation of the neurons of a given cell type. We work in the context of the circuit with three inhibitory cell types (PV, SOM, VIP) in mouse V1. We show that, if a given cell type shows a paradoxical response to its own full stimulation, then the circuit without that cell type is unstable. This and experimental results to date, as well as our models fitted to data, suggest that PV but not SOM interneurons stabilize the circuit of layer 2/3 of mouse V1, at least for smaller visual stimulus sizes. For partial perturbations of a fraction f of a cell type that responds paradoxically to a full perturbation, there is a "fractional paradoxical effect": the proportion of all the cells of that type, stimulated and unstimulated, that respond opposite to the stimulation (i.e. negative response to excitation), changes non-monotonically, approaching 1 for f→0, decreasing with increasing f, and then increasing again to again approach 1 as f→1. I'll explain the origins of this behavior.3) We (Mario Dipoppa, in collaboration with the experimental work of Andy Keller and Morgane Roth from the Scanziani lab) have studied the E-PV-SOM-VIP circuit underlying contextual modulation in layer 2/3 of mouse V1. Experiments showed that E, PV, and VIP are suppressed by a surround stimuus that has the same orientation as, but not by one orthogonal to, the center stimulus. SOM neurons show the opposite behavior, being suppressed by an orthogonal but much less by a parallel surround. A combination of theory and optogenetic experiments show that the disinhibitory circuit -- VIP inhibits SOM, which inhibits E -- modulate responses between the two conditions. However, it does so, as part of the recurrent circuit, primarily by changing the recurrent excitation E cells receive, rather than by directly changing the inhibition received, in a manner reminiscent of the paradoxical response. Presented in the van Vreeswijk Theoretical Neuroscience Seminar series (formerly WWTNS) on 2021-06-09. Recording duration: 00:51:59.

We see the last cookie in the box and think, can I take that? We reach a hand out. In the 2.1 seconds that this impulse travels through our brain, billions of neurons communicate with one another, sending blips of voltage through our sensory and motor regions. Neuroscientists call these blips “spikes.” Spikes enable us to do everything: talk, eat, run, see, plan, and decide. In The Spike, Mark Humphries takes readers on the epic journey of a spike through a single, brief reaction. In vivid language, Humphries tells the story of what happens in our brain, what we know about spikes, and what we still have left to understand about them. Drawing on decades of research in neuroscience, Humphries explores how spikes are born, how they are transmitted, and how they lead us to action. He dives into previously unanswered mysteries: Why are most neurons silent? What causes neurons to fire spikes spontaneously, without input from other neurons or the outside world? Why do most spikes fail to reach any destination? Humphries presents a new vision of the brain, one where fundamental computations are carried out by spontaneous spikes that predict what will happen in the world, helping us to perceive, decide, and react quickly enough for our survival. Traversing neuroscience’s expansive terrain, The Spike follows a single electrical response to illuminate how our extraordinary brains work.

Traditionally, the dorsolateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN) of the thalamus has been considered a feedforward relay station for retinal signals to reach primary visual cortex. The local and long-range circuits of dLGN, however, suggest that this view is not correct. Indeed, besides the thalamo-cortical relay cells, dLGN contains local inhibitory interneurons, and receives not only feedforward input from the retina, but also massive direct and indirect feedback from primary visual cortex. Furthermore, it is one of the earliest processing stages in the visual system that integrates visual information with neuromodulatory signals.

Modern day “neurohackers” are radically self-experimenting, attempting genomic modification with CRISPR-Cas9 constructs and electrode insertion into their cortex amongst a host of other things. Institutions wanting to avoid the risks bought on by these procedures, generally avoid involvement with self-experimenting research. Modern day “neurohackers” are radically self-experimenting, attempting genomic modification with CRISPR-Cas9 constructs and electrode insertion into their cortex amongst a host of other things. Institutions wanting to avoid the risks bought on by these procedures, generally avoid involvement with self-experimenting research. But what is the ethical thing to do? Should researchers be allowed or encouraged to self-experiment? Should institutions support or hinder them? Where do you think that this process of self-experimentation could take us? This presentation by Dr Matt Lennon and Professor Zoltan Molnar of the University of Oxford, will explore the history, future and ethics of self-experimentation. It will explore notable examples of self-experimenters including Isaac Newton, Angelo Ruffini and Oliver Sacks and how a number of these pivotal experiments created paradigm shifts in neuroscience. The presentation will open up a forum for all participants to be involved asking key ethical questions around what should and should not be allowed in self-experimentation research.

Every autumn, monarch butterflies migrate from North America to their overwintering sites in Central Mexico. To maintain their southward direction, these butterflies rely on celestial cues as orientation references. The position of the sun combined with additional skylight cues are integrated in the central complex, a region in the butterfly’s brain that acts as an internal compass. However, the central complex does not solely guide the butterflies on their migration but also helps monarchs in their non-migratory form manoeuvre on foraging trips through their habitat. By comparing the activity of input neurons of the central complex between migratory and non-migratory butterflies, we investigated how a different lifestyle affects the coding of orientation information in the brain.

To understand how the brain can perform complex tasks such as perception, we have to understand how information enters the brain, how it is transformed and how it is transferred. But, how do we measure information transfer in the brain? This presentation will start with a general introduction of what mutual information is and how to measure it in an experimental setup. Next, the talk will focus on how this can be used to develop brain models at different (spatial) levels, from the microscopic single neuron level to the macroscopic network and behavioural level. How can we incorporate the knowledge about single neurons, that already show complex dynamics, into network activity and link this to behaviour?

During natural behavior animals dynamically switch between different behaviors, yet little is known about how the brain performs behavioral-switches. Navigation is a complex dynamic behavior that enables testing these kind of behavioral switches: It requires the animal to know its own allocentric (world-centered) location within the environment, while also paying attention to incoming sudden events such as obstacles or other conspecifics – and therefore the animal may need to rapidly switch from representing its own allocentric position to egocentrically representing ‘things out-there’. Here we used an ethological task where two bats flew together in a very large environment (130 meters), and had to switch between two behaviors: (i) navigation, and (ii) obstacle-avoidance during ‘cross-over’ events with the other bat. Bats increased their echolocation click-rate before a cross-over, indicating spatial attention to the other bat. Hippocampal CA1 neurons represented the bat’s own position when flying alone (allocentric place-coding); surprisingly, when meeting the other bat, neurons switched very rapidly to jointly representing the inter-bat distance × position (egocentric × allocentric coding). This switching to a neuronal representation of the other bat was correlated on a trial-by-trial basis with the attention signal, as indexed by the bat’s echolocation calls – suggesting that sensory attention is controlling these major switches in neural coding. Interestingly, we found that in place-cells, the different place-fields of the same neuron could exhibit very different tuning to inter-bat distance – creating a non-separable coding of allocentric position × egocentric distance. Together, our results suggest that attentional switches during navigation – which in bats can be measured directly based on their echolocation signals – elicit rapid dynamics of hippocampal spatial coding. More broadly, this study demonstrates that during natural behavior, when animals often switch between different behaviors, neural circuits can rapidly and flexibly switch their core computations.

Malformations of cortical development (MCDs) result from alterations of one or combined developmental steps, including progenitors proliferation, neuronal migration and differentiation. They are important cause of childhood epilepsy and frequently associate cognitive deficits and behavioral alterations. Though the genetic basis of MCDs have known prominent progress during the past decade, including the identification of somatic, mosaic mutations responsible for focal MCDs, the pathophysiological mechanisms linking malformations to epileptogenesis remain elusive. In this seminar I will present data from my team and from the literature addressing this topic in two different MCDs types, the subcortical band heterotopia as a model of cortical migration defect and mTOR- dependent MCDs , that characterize by cortical dyslamination and neuronal differentiation defects.