Update 2024-09-09-data_reuse_000458.md

blog/2024-09-09-data_reuse_000458.md

@@ -25,11 +25,9 @@ This rebound excitation, in turn, drives the second component of the ERP – a c
 
 After their experiments, Claar and her team published their data on DANDI, ensuring that it would remain publicly accessible for any future researchers who wanted to use it. The dataset and manuscript were prepared and published concurrently, which ensured that the dataset included all the paper-relevant data and metadata and curious reviewers could inspect the data directly if they so wished.
 
-<figure>
-<img src="../../../assets/data_reuse_000458_elife-fig7.jpg" alt="Figure 1" width="75%">
-<figcaption> Figure 1: Brain state modulates the ERP via cortico-thalamo-cortical interactions. (A) Butterfly plot of ERPs during non-running (quiet wakefulness), running (active wakefulness), and isoflurane-anesthetized states. (B) Normalized firing rate, reported as a z-score of the average, pre-stimulus firing rate, of all RS neurons recorded by the Neuropixels probes targeting the stimulated cortex (MO) and SM-TH. Reproduced from “Cortico-thalamo-cortical interactions modulate electrically evoked EEG responses in mice”.
-</figcaption>
-</figure>
+[Figure1](../../../assets/data_reuse_000458_elife-fig7.jpg)
+
+_Figure 1: Brain state modulates the ERP via cortico-thalamo-cortical interactions. (A) Butterfly plot of ERPs during non-running (quiet wakefulness), running (active wakefulness), and isoflurane-anesthetized states. (B) Normalized firing rate, reported as a z-score of the average, pre-stimulus firing rate, of all RS neurons recorded by the Neuropixels probes targeting the stimulated cortex (MO) and SM-TH. Reproduced from “Cortico-thalamo-cortical interactions modulate electrically evoked EEG responses in mice”.
 
 ## A New Perspective: Zooming in on Synaptic Potentials
 Just a few months later, in November 2023, Drs. Richard Burman, Paul Brodersen and colleagues at the University of Oxford wrote a paper that included reanalysis of this data.
@@ -53,9 +51,9 @@ By reanalyzing this data and manipulating a computational network model, they fo
 Conversely, setting it to the hyperpolarizing regime (-80mV) mimicked the responses seen in anesthetized mice (Figure 2 B&F right).
 This data provides evidence for the hypothesized bidirectional relationship.
 
-<figure>
-<img src="../../../assets/data_reuse_000458_cell-fig4.jpg" alt="Figure 2" width="75%">
-<figcaption> Figure 2: Shunting inhibition promotes local network desynchronization and response flexibility. (A) High-density Neuropixels (NPXs) recordings were used to compare spiking activity in the same cortical neurons under awake and anesthetized conditions. (B) Example raster plots show the spiking activity of a population of neurons in somatosensory cortex (SS). Spiking activity is shown across three stimulation trials for each condition. (C) Neuronal synchrony on a trial-to-trial basis (top) and the entropy of the peri-stimulus histogram (bottom) were calculated for each of the 662 recorded neurons under awake and anesthetized conditions (17 probe recordings in 16 mice). Each dot corresponds to a single neuron and the dashed line indicates the line of equality. (D) Neurons in the awake condition exhibited lower synchrony (top; Aw.: 0.325 ± 0.005 vs. An.: 0.393 ± 0.007, p < 0.001, paired t test) and higher entropy (bottom; Aw.: 1.347 ± 0.018 nats vs. An.: 1.111 ± 0.020 nats, p < 0.001, paired t test). (E) Schematic of network model consisting of interconnected excitatory pyramidal neurons (Pyr.) and inhibitory interneurons (IN). EGABAAR in the pyramidal neurons was adjusted relative to the RMP to create two different conditions: a shunting (Shunt.) and a hyperpolarizing (Hyperpol.) EGABAAR condition. Spiking activity was evoked by delivering brief depolarizing currents (input) of varying amplitudes to each neuron in the network. (F) Raster plots for the same population of pyramidal neurons (n = 50) in the shunting (left) and hyperpolarizing (right) EGABAAR conditions. (G) Synchrony (top) and entropy (bottom) for pyramidal neurons in the shunting and hyperpolarizing EGABAAR conditions (n = 1,000 randomly selected). Dashed line indicates the line of equality. (H) Neurons in the shunting EGABAAR condition exhibited lower synchrony (Shunt: 0.784 ± 0.001 vs. Hyperpol: 0.881 ± 0.001, p < 0.001, paired t test) and higher entropy (Shunt: 0.451 ± 0.002 nats vs. Hyperpol: 0.197 ± 0.002 nats, p < 0.001, paired t test) (n = 16,000 pyramidal neurons from the model). ∗∗∗p < 0.001. MO, motor cortex; Stim., electrical stimulation; TH, thalamus. Reproduced from “Active cortical networks promote shunting fast synaptic inhibition <i>in vivo</i>”.
+![Figure2]("assets/data_reuse_000458_cell-fig4.jpg")
+
+_Figure 2: Shunting inhibition promotes local network desynchronization and response flexibility. (A) High-density Neuropixels (NPXs) recordings were used to compare spiking activity in the same cortical neurons under awake and anesthetized conditions. (B) Example raster plots show the spiking activity of a population of neurons in somatosensory cortex (SS). Spiking activity is shown across three stimulation trials for each condition. (C) Neuronal synchrony on a trial-to-trial basis (top) and the entropy of the peri-stimulus histogram (bottom) were calculated for each of the 662 recorded neurons under awake and anesthetized conditions (17 probe recordings in 16 mice). Each dot corresponds to a single neuron and the dashed line indicates the line of equality. (D) Neurons in the awake condition exhibited lower synchrony (top; Aw.: 0.325 ± 0.005 vs. An.: 0.393 ± 0.007, p < 0.001, paired t test) and higher entropy (bottom; Aw.: 1.347 ± 0.018 nats vs. An.: 1.111 ± 0.020 nats, p < 0.001, paired t test). (E) Schematic of network model consisting of interconnected excitatory pyramidal neurons (Pyr.) and inhibitory interneurons (IN). EGABAAR in the pyramidal neurons was adjusted relative to the RMP to create two different conditions: a shunting (Shunt.) and a hyperpolarizing (Hyperpol.) EGABAAR condition. Spiking activity was evoked by delivering brief depolarizing currents (input) of varying amplitudes to each neuron in the network. (F) Raster plots for the same population of pyramidal neurons (n = 50) in the shunting (left) and hyperpolarizing (right) EGABAAR conditions. (G) Synchrony (top) and entropy (bottom) for pyramidal neurons in the shunting and hyperpolarizing EGABAAR conditions (n = 1,000 randomly selected). Dashed line indicates the line of equality. (H) Neurons in the shunting EGABAAR condition exhibited lower synchrony (Shunt: 0.784 ± 0.001 vs. Hyperpol: 0.881 ± 0.001, p < 0.001, paired t test) and higher entropy (Shunt: 0.451 ± 0.002 nats vs. Hyperpol: 0.197 ± 0.002 nats, p < 0.001, paired t test) (n = 16,000 pyramidal neurons from the model). ∗∗∗p < 0.001. MO, motor cortex; Stim., electrical stimulation; TH, thalamus. Reproduced from “Active cortical networks promote shunting fast synaptic inhibition <i>in vivo</i>”.
 </figcaption>
 </figure>