Axon morphology and intrinsic cellular properties determine repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation threshold for plasticity.
axons
excitation
inhibition
morphology
organotypic tissue cultures
synaptic plasticity
whole-cell patch-clamp recordings
Journal
Frontiers in cellular neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-5102
Titre abrégé: Front Cell Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101477935
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2024
2024
Historique:
received:
22
01
2024
accepted:
13
03
2024
medline:
19
4
2024
pubmed:
19
4
2024
entrez:
19
4
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a widely used therapeutic tool in neurology and psychiatry, but its cellular and molecular mechanisms are not fully understood. Standardizing stimulus parameters, specifically electric field strength, is crucial in experimental and clinical settings. It enables meaningful comparisons across studies and facilitates the translation of findings into clinical practice. However, the impact of biophysical properties inherent to the stimulated neurons and networks on the outcome of rTMS protocols remains not well understood. Consequently, achieving standardization of biological effects across different brain regions and subjects poses a significant challenge. This study compared the effects of 10 Hz repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) in entorhino-hippocampal tissue cultures from mice and rats, providing insights into the impact of the same stimulation protocol on similar neuronal networks under standardized conditions. We observed the previously described plastic changes in excitatory and inhibitory synaptic strength of CA1 pyramidal neurons in both mouse and rat tissue cultures, but a higher stimulation intensity was required for the induction of rMS-induced synaptic plasticity in rat tissue cultures. Through systematic comparison of neuronal structural and functional properties and computational modeling, we found that morphological parameters of CA1 pyramidal neurons alone are insufficient to explain the observed differences between the groups. Although morphologies of mouse and rat CA1 neurons showed no significant differences, simulations confirmed that axon morphologies significantly influence individual cell activation thresholds. Notably, differences in intrinsic cellular properties were sufficient to account for the 10% higher intensity required for the induction of synaptic plasticity in the rat tissue cultures. These findings demonstrate the critical importance of axon morphology and intrinsic cellular properties in predicting the plasticity effects of rTMS, carrying valuable implications for the development of computer models aimed at predicting and standardizing the biological effects of rTMS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38638302
doi: 10.3389/fncel.2024.1374555
pmc: PMC11025360
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1374555Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Galanis, Neuhaus, Hananeia, Turi, Jedlicka and Vlachos.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Références
Nat Neurosci. 2005 Dec;8(12):1667-76
pubmed: 16299501
Brain Stimul. 2020 Jan - Feb;13(1):175-189
pubmed: 31611014
Handb Clin Neurol. 2013;116:329-42
pubmed: 24112906
Neurosci Lett. 2020 Feb 6;719:133330
pubmed: 29294333
Front Immunol. 2020 Dec 16;11:614509
pubmed: 33391287
Brain Stimul. 2017 Jan - Feb;10(1):1-18
pubmed: 27931886
Neural Plast. 2014;2014:684238
pubmed: 25405036
Brain Struct Funct. 2015 Nov;220(6):3323-37
pubmed: 25108309
Front Neurol. 2022 May 20;13:793253
pubmed: 35669870
J Neurophysiol. 2009 Oct;102(4):2288-302
pubmed: 19675296
Nat Commun. 2016 Jan 08;7:10020
pubmed: 26743822
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jun 08;17(11):
pubmed: 32521613
Schizophrenia (Heidelb). 2022 Apr 9;8(1):35
pubmed: 35853882
Eur J Neurosci. 2006 Mar;23(6):1651-7
pubmed: 16553629
Clin Neurophysiol. 2004 Jul;115(7):1697-708
pubmed: 15203072
Neuroimage. 2011 Jan 1;54(1):234-43
pubmed: 20682353
BMC Psychiatry. 2019 Jan 8;19(1):13
pubmed: 30621636
Neurosci Lett. 2009 Sep 18;461(2):150-4
pubmed: 19539714
Headache. 2011 Jul-Aug;51(7):1152-60
pubmed: 21649655
Brain Stimul. 2021 Nov-Dec;14(6):1498-1507
pubmed: 34653682
Brain Stimul. 2016 May-Jun;9(3):323-335
pubmed: 26947241
Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 20;10(1):11994
pubmed: 32686711
Sci Rep. 2022 Nov 29;12(1):20571
pubmed: 36446821
Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2018 Sep;41(3):419-431
pubmed: 30098655
Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2017 Aug 1;20(8):634-643
pubmed: 28430976
Brain Stimul. 2019 Mar - Apr;12(2):275-289
pubmed: 30449635
Brain Stimul. 2012 Oct;5(4):435-53
pubmed: 22305345
Nat Commun. 2018 Nov 30;9(1):5092
pubmed: 30504921
J Neurosci. 2005 Mar 23;25(12):3219-28
pubmed: 15788779
Nature. 2010 Jan 14;463(7278):232-6
pubmed: 20075918
Neuron. 2007 Sep 20;55(6):919-29
pubmed: 17880895
Elife. 2022 Sep 13;11:
pubmed: 36097816
Psychiatr Q. 2018 Sep;89(3):645-665
pubmed: 29423665
Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2014;30:439-63
pubmed: 25288116
Neurology. 1997 May;48(5):1398-403
pubmed: 9153480
Brain Stimul. 2021 Nov-Dec;14(6):1470-1482
pubmed: 34562659
J Neurosci. 2021 Jun 16;41(24):5157-5172
pubmed: 33926999
Brain Stimul. 2014 May-Jun;7(3):372-80
pubmed: 24630849
Clin Neurophysiol. 2020 Feb;131(2):474-528
pubmed: 31901449
Neuron. 2005 Jan 20;45(2):201-6
pubmed: 15664172
Neurology. 2000 Jan 11;54(1):142-7
pubmed: 10636140
Dev Neurobiol. 2021 Jul;81(5):568-590
pubmed: 33583110
Eur J Neurosci. 2021 May;53(10):3404-3415
pubmed: 33754397
Front Aging Neurosci. 2019 Sep 18;11:235
pubmed: 31619982
Clin Neurophysiol. 2022 Aug;140:59-97
pubmed: 35738037
Neuroimage. 2011 Oct 1;58(3):849-59
pubmed: 21749927
Brain Stimul. 2014 Nov-Dec;7(6):864-70
pubmed: 25216649
Glia. 2023 Sep;71(9):2117-2136
pubmed: 37208965
Trends Neurosci. 1996 Apr;19(4):126-30
pubmed: 8658594
Neuroimage Clin. 2018 May 23;19:661-674
pubmed: 30023172
Behav Brain Res. 2021 Jul 23;410:113352
pubmed: 33979657
Lancet. 2018 Apr 28;391(10131):1683-1692
pubmed: 29726344
J Neurosci. 2012 Nov 28;32(48):17514-23
pubmed: 23197741
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009 Sep;34(10):2323-8
pubmed: 19516251
Clin Neurophysiol. 2011 Apr;122(4):748-58
pubmed: 21035390
J Neuroinflammation. 2020 May 6;17(1):150
pubmed: 32375835
J Neural Eng. 2018 Dec;15(6):066023
pubmed: 30127100
Neurosci Res. 2021 Jun;167:17-29
pubmed: 33316304
Nat Neurosci. 2013 Jul;16(7):838-44
pubmed: 23799477
Brain Stimul. 2013 Jan;6(1):1-13
pubmed: 22483681
Front Neurosci. 2022 Jul 08;16:929814
pubmed: 35898411
J Neurosci. 2023 Apr 26;43(17):3042-3060
pubmed: 36977586
Neuroscience. 2015 Sep 24;304:266-78
pubmed: 26208843
Front Mol Neurosci. 2013 Dec 17;6:50
pubmed: 24381540
Rev Neurosci. 2010;21(4):289-98
pubmed: 21086761