Somatodendritic orientation determines tDCS-induced neuromodulation of Purkinje cell activity in awake mice
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife assessment
In this elegant and thorough study, Sánchez-León et al. investigate the effects of tDCS on the firing of single cerebellar neurons in awake and anesthetized mice. They find heterogeneous responses depending on the orientation of the recorded Purkinje cell. The paper is important in that it may well explain part of the controversial and ambiguous outcomes of various clinical trials. It is a well-written paper on a deeply analyzed dataset and the methods in the paper are generally convincing, with the current version having some weaknesses in statistical reporting and power.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
Abstract
Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) of the cerebellum is a promising non-invasive neuromodulatory technique being proposed for the treatment of neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. However, there is a lack of knowledge about how externally applied currents affect neuronal spiking activity in cerebellar circuits in vivo . We investigated how Cb-tDCS affects the firing rate of Purkinje cells (PC) and non-PC in the mouse cerebellar cortex to understand the underlying mechanisms behind the polarity-dependent modulation of neuronal activity induced by tDCS.Mice (n = 9) were prepared for the chronic recording of LFPs to assess the actual electric field gradient imposed by Cb-tDCS in our experimental design. Single-neuron extracellular recording of PCs in awake (n = 24) and anesthetized (n = 27) mice was combined with juxtacellular recordings and subsequent staining of PC with neurobiotin under anesthesia (n = 8) to correlate their neuronal orientation with their response to Cb-tDCS. Finally, a high-density Neuropixels recording system was used to demonstrate the relevance of neuronal orientation during the application of Cb-tDCS in awake mice (n = 6).In this study, we observe that Cb-tDCS induces a heterogeneous polarity-dependent modulation of the firing rate of Purkinje cells (PC) and non-PC in the mouse cerebellar cortex. We demonstrate that the apparently heterogeneous effects of tDCS on PC activity can be explained by taking into account the somatodendritic orientation relative to the electric field. Our findings highlight the need to consider neuronal orientation and morphology to improve tDCS computational models, enhance stimulation protocol reliability, and optimize effects in both basic and clinical applications.
Article activity feed
-
eLife assessment
In this elegant and thorough study, Sánchez-León et al. investigate the effects of tDCS on the firing of single cerebellar neurons in awake and anesthetized mice. They find heterogeneous responses depending on the orientation of the recorded Purkinje cell. The paper is important in that it may well explain part of the controversial and ambiguous outcomes of various clinical trials. It is a well-written paper on a deeply analyzed dataset and the methods in the paper are generally convincing, with the current version having some weaknesses in statistical reporting and power.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
In this elegant and thorough study, Sánchez-León et al. investigate the effects of tDCS on the firing of single cerebellar neurons in awake and anesthetized mice. They find heterogeneous responses depending on the orientation of the recorded Purkinje cell.
Strengths:
The paper is important in that it may well explain part of the controversial and ambiguous outcomes of various clinical trials. It is a well-written paper on a deeply analyzed dataset.
Weaknesses:
The sample size could be increased for some of the experiments.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
In this study by Sánchez-León and colleagues, the authors attempted to determine the influence of neuronal orientation on the efficacy of cerebellar tDCS in modulating neural activity. To do this, the authors made recordings from Purkinje cells, the primary output neurons of the cerebellar cortex, and determined the inter-dependency between the orientation of these cells and the changes in their firing rate during cerebellar tDCS application.
Strengths:
(1) A major strength is the in vivo nature of this study. Being able to simultaneously record neural activity and apply exogenous electrical current to the brain during both an anesthetized state and during wakefulness in these animals provides important insight into the physiological underpinnings of tDCS.
(2) The authors provide evidence that tDCS …
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
In this study by Sánchez-León and colleagues, the authors attempted to determine the influence of neuronal orientation on the efficacy of cerebellar tDCS in modulating neural activity. To do this, the authors made recordings from Purkinje cells, the primary output neurons of the cerebellar cortex, and determined the inter-dependency between the orientation of these cells and the changes in their firing rate during cerebellar tDCS application.
Strengths:
(1) A major strength is the in vivo nature of this study. Being able to simultaneously record neural activity and apply exogenous electrical current to the brain during both an anesthetized state and during wakefulness in these animals provides important insight into the physiological underpinnings of tDCS.
(2) The authors provide evidence that tDCS can modulate neural activity in multiple cell types. For example, there is a similar pattern of modulation in Purkinje cells and non-Purkinje cells (excitatory and inhibitory interneurons). Together, these data provide wholistic insight into how tDCS can affect activity across different populations of cells, which has important implications for basic neuroscience, but also clinical populations where there may be non-uniform or staged effects of neurological disease on these various cell types.
(3) There is a systematic investigation into the effects of tDCS on neural activity across multiple regions of the cerebellum. The authors demonstrate that the pattern of modulation is dependent on the target region. These findings have important implications for determining the expected neuromodulatory effects of tDCS when applying this technique over different target regions non-invasively in animals and humans.
Weaknesses:
(1) In the introduction, there is a lack of context regarding why neuronal orientation might be a critical factor influencing the responsiveness to tDCS. The authors allude to in vitro studies that have shown neuronal orientation to be relevant for the effects of tDCS on neural activity but do not expand on why this might be the case. These points could be better understood by informing the reader about the uniformity/non-uniformity of the induced electric field by tDCS. In addition, there is a lack of an a priori hypothesis. For example, would the authors have expected that neuronal orientation parallel or perpendicular to the electrical field to be related to the effects of tDCS on neural activity?
(2) It is unclear how specific stimulation parameters were determined. First, how were the tDCS intensities used in the present experiments determined/selected, and how does the relative strength of this induced electric field equate to the intensities used non-invasively during tDCS experiments in humans? Second, there is also a fundamental difference in the pattern of application used here (e.g., 15 s pulses separated by 10 s of no stimulation) compared to human studies (e.g., 10-20 min of constant stimulation).
(3) In their first experiment, the authors measure the electric field strength at increasing depths during increasing stimulation intensities. However, it appears that an alternating current rather than a direct current, which is usually employed in tDCS protocols, was used. There is a lack of rationale regarding why the alternating current was used for this component. Typically, this technique is more commonly used for entraining/boosting neural oscillations compared to studies using tDCS which aim to increase or decrease neural activity in general.
-
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
In this study, Sanchez-Leon et al. combined extracellular recordings of Purkinje cell activity in awake and anesthetized mice with juxtacellular recordings and Purkinje cell staining to link Purkinje cell orientation to their stimulation response. The authors find a relationship between neuron orientation and firing rate, dependent on stimulation type (anodal/cathodal). They also show the effects of stimulation intensity and rebound effects.
Strengths:
Overall, the work is methodologically sound and the manuscript is well written. The authors have taken great care to explain their rationale and methodological choices.
Weaknesses:
My only reservation is the lack of reporting of the precise test statistics, p-values, and multiple comparison corrections. The work would benefit from adding this and …
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
In this study, Sanchez-Leon et al. combined extracellular recordings of Purkinje cell activity in awake and anesthetized mice with juxtacellular recordings and Purkinje cell staining to link Purkinje cell orientation to their stimulation response. The authors find a relationship between neuron orientation and firing rate, dependent on stimulation type (anodal/cathodal). They also show the effects of stimulation intensity and rebound effects.
Strengths:
Overall, the work is methodologically sound and the manuscript is well written. The authors have taken great care to explain their rationale and methodological choices.
Weaknesses:
My only reservation is the lack of reporting of the precise test statistics, p-values, and multiple comparison corrections. The work would benefit from adding this and other information.
Major Comments:
(1) The authors should report the exact test statistics. These are missing for all comparisons and hinder the reader from understanding what exactly was tested for each of the experiments. For example, having the exact test statistics would help better understand the non-significant differences in Figure 1h where there is at least a numeric difference in CS firing rate during tDCS.
(2) Did the authors apply any corrections for multiple comparisons? Generally, it would be helpful if they could clarify the statistical analysis (which values were subjected to the tests, how many tests were performed for each question, etc.).
(3) The relationship shown in Figure 2g seems to be influenced by the two outliers. Have the authors confirmed the results using a robust linear regression method?
(4) The authors conclude that tDCS modulates vermal PCs more than Crus I/II PCs - but they don't seem to test this statistically. It would be helpful to submit the firing rate change values to an actual statistical test to conclude this directly from the data
-
-
-
-
-