Examining phase response curve of nerve cell by using three different methods

Hasan Eskalen; Şükrü Özğan

doi:10.32571/ijct.338403

EN

Examining phase response curve of nerve cell by using three different methods

Abstract

Rhythmic motion is observed in a variety of different field including physical, chemical and biological systems. Neural system, that consists of billions of neurons are also exhibited periodic motion. Phase Response Curves (PRCs); act like a bridge between, a single neuron and neural network; briefly measure change in period of oscillation by giving perturbation at different points of oscillation. PRCs can determined from measurements of electrical activities of neurons by experimental methods or theoretically derived from three different methods. As far as we know from the literature, these three different methods have never been used at the same time before. The main purpose of this computational study is to the obtain Phase Response Curve by three different methods and compare them in terms of simulation times and peak to baseline ratio. First, the kinds of excitability of neurons, the types of Phase Response Curve and peak to baseline ratio are mentioned. After then, these three different methods to obtain PRC are explained deeply. At a final step, Phase Response Curves are obtained from three theoretical methods and compared regarding to peak to baseline ratio, simulation time and applicability.

Keywords

Phase response curve,Direct method,Linear adjoint method,Adapted Direct method

References

1. Hodgkin, A.L.; Huxley, A. F. J. Physiol. 1952, 117 (4), 500-544.
2. Izhikevich, E.M. Dynamical systems in Neuroscience, MIT press: 2007.
3. Rich, S.; Booth, V.; Zochowski, M. Front. Neural Circuits 2016, 10, 82.
4. Park, Y.; Ermentrout, B. J. Comput. Neurosci. 2016, 40 (3), 269-281.
5. Van Der Pol, B.; Van Der Mark, J. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Phil. Mag. J. Sci. 1928, 6 (38), 763-775.
6. Kralemann, B.; Frühwirth, M.; Pikovsky, A.; Rosenblum, M.; Kenner, T.; Schaefer, J.; Moser, M. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 3418.
7. Funato, T.; Yamamoto, Y.; Aoi, S.; Imai, T.; Aoyagi, T.; Tomita, N.; Tsuchiya, K. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2016, 12 (5), e1004950.
8. Nessler, J.A.; Spargo, T.; Craig-Jones, A.; Milton, J.G. Gait Posture 2016, 43, 187-191.

9. Minors, D. S.; Waterhouse, J. M.; Wirz-Justice, A. Neurosci. Lett. 1991, 133 (1), 36-40.
10. Eck, S.; Helfrich-Förster, C.; Rieger, D. J. Biol. Rhythm. 2016, 31 (5), 428-442.
11. Field, R. J.; Noyes, R. M. J. Chem. Phys. 1974, 60 (5), 1877-1884.
12. Proskurkin, I.S.; Vanag, V.K., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2015, 17 (27), 17906-17913.
13. Franović, I.; Kostić, S.; Perc, M.; Klinshov, V.; Nekorkin, V.; Kurths, J. Chaos 2016, 26 (6), 063105.
14. Nakao, H. Contemp. Phys. 2016, 57 (2), 188-214.
15. Pikovsky, A.; Rosenblum, M.; Kurths, J. Synchronization: a universal concept in nonlinear sciences. Cambridge University Press: 2003; Vol. 12.
16. Strogatz, S.H. Nonlinear dynamics and chaos: with applications to physics, biology, chemistry, and engineering. Hachette UK: 2014.
17. Smeal, R.M.; Ermentrout, G.B.; White, J.A. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 2010, 365 (1551), 2407-2422.
18. Stein, R. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 167 (1006), 64-86, 1967.
19. Tateno, T.; Harsch, A.; Robinson, H. J. Neurophysiol. 2004, 92 (4), 2283-2294.
20. Uhlhaas, P. J.; Singer, W. Neuron 2006, 52 (1), 155-168.
21. Spencer, K.M.; Nestor, P.G.; Perlmutter, R.; Niznikiewicz, M.A.; Klump, M.C.; Frumin, M.; Shenton, M.E.; McCarley, R.W. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101 (49), 17288-17293, 2004.
22. Uhlhaas, P.J.; Linden, D.E.; Singer, W.; Haenschel, C.; Lindner, M.; Maurer, K.; Rodriguez, E. J. Neurosci. 2006, 26 (31), 8168-8175.
23. Krishnan, G.P.; Vohs, J.L.; Hetrick, W.P.; Carroll, C. A.; Shekhar, A.; Bockbrader, M. A.; O'Donnell, B.F. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2005, 116 (3), 614-624.
24. Stam, C.J.; Jones, B.; Nolte, G.; Breakspear, M.; Scheltens, P. Cereb. Ccortex 2006, 17 (1), 92-99.
25. König, T.; Prichep, L.; Dierks, T.; Hubl, D.; Wahlund, L.; John, E.; Jelic, V. Neurobiol. Aging 2005, 26 (2), 165-171.
26. Hammond, C.; Bergman, H.; Brown, P. Trends Neurosci. 2007, 30 (7), 357-364.
27. Schnitzler, A.; Gross, J., Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2005, 6 (4), 285-296.
28. Holt, A.B.; Wilson, D.; Shinn, M.; Moehlis, J.; Netoff, T.I. PLoS Computat. Biol. 2016, 12 (7), e1005011.
29. Milton, J. G. Epilepsy Behav. 2010, 18 (1), 33-44.
30. Bressloff, P. C.; Ermentrout, B.; Faugeras, O.; Thomas, P. J. J. Math. Neurosci. 2016, 6 ( 4), 1-9.
31. Delaunay, F. B. Cancer 2017, 104 (10), 821-.822.
32. Ermentrout, B. Neural Comput. 1996, 8 (5), 979-1001.
33. Brown, E.; Moehlis, J.; Holmes, P. Neural Comput. 2004, 16 (4), 673-715.
34. Marella, S.; Ermentrout, G.B. Phys. Rev. E, 2008, 77 (4), 041918.
35. Ermentrout, G. B.; Galán, R. F.; Urban, N. N. Trends Neurosci. 2008, 31 (8), 428-434.
36. Qiao, W.; Wen, J. T.; Julius, A. IEEE T. Automat. Contr. 2017, 62 (1), 445-450.
37. Sato, Y. D.; Aihara, K. Neural Comput. 2014, 26 (11), 2395-2418.
38. Canavier, C. C. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2015, 31, 206-213.
39. Buchin, A.; Rieubland, S.; Häusser, M.; Gutkin, B. S.; Roth, A. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2016, 12(8), e1005000.
40. Cui, J.; Canavier, C.C.; Butera, R.J. J. Neurophysiol. 2009, 102 (1), 387-398.
41. Tateno, T.; Robinson, H. Biophys. J. 2007, 92 (2), 683-695.
42. Galán, R.F.; Ermentrout, G.B.; Urban, N.N. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2005, 94 (15), 158101.
43. Saifee, T.A.; Edwards, M.J.; Kassavetis, P.; Gilbertson, T. J. Neurophysiol. 2015, 115 (1), 310-323.
44. Jones, J. R.; Tackenberg, M. C.; McMahon, D.G. Nat. Neurosci. 2015, 18 (3), 373-375.
45. Ostojic, S.; Szapiro, G.; Schwartz, E.; Barbour, B.; Brunel, N.; Hakim, V. J. Neurosci. 2015, 35 (18), 7056-7068.
46. Miranda-Dominguez, O.; Netoff, T.I. J. Neurophysiol. 2013, 109 (9), 2306-2316.
47. Kobelevskiy, I. Bifurcation analysis of a system of Morris-Lecar neurons with time delayed gap junctional coupling. Mater Thesis, University of Waterloo, 2008.
48. Izhikevich, E.M. IEEE T. Neural Networ. 1999, 10 (3), 499-507.
49. Izhikevich, E.M. Int. J. Bifurcat. Chaos 2000, 10 (06), 1171-1266.
50. Yu, T.; Sejnowski, T. J.; Cauwenberghs, G. IEEE T. Biomed. Circ. S. 2011, 5 (5), 420-429.
51. Phoka, E.; Cuntz, H.; Roth, A.; Häusser, M. PLoS Computat. Biol. 2010, 6 (4), e1000768.
52. Couto, J.; Linaro, D.; De Schutter, E.; Giugliano, M. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2015, 11 (3), e1004112.
53. Novičenko, V.; Pyragas, K. Nonlinear Dynam. 2012, 67 (1), 517-526.
54. Fang, Y.; Yashin, V. V.; Jennings, B. B.; Chiarulli, D. M.; Levitan, S. P. ACM J. Emerg. Tech. Com. 2016, 13 (2), 14.
55. Hoppensteadt, F. C.; Izhikevich, E.M. Weakly connected neural networks. Springer Science & Business Media: 2012; Vol. 126.
56. Ermentrout, B. Simulating, analyzing, and animating dynamical systems: a guide to XPPAUT for researchers and students. Book Code: SE14, SIAM, 2002.
57. Nakao, H.; Yanagita, T.; Kawamura, Y. Phys. Rev. X, 2014, 4, 021032 (1-23).
58. Novičenko V webpage. http://www.itpa.lt/~novicenko/index.php?page=soft (accessed June 14, 2017).

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Structural Biology

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Hasan Eskalen
Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science, Bioengineering Program, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey
0000-0002-4523-6573
Türkiye

Şükrü Özğan
Department of Physics, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, 46040, Kahramanmaraş
0000-0001-9334-327X
Türkiye

Publication Date

February 28, 2018

Submission Date

September 15, 2017

Acceptance Date

December 5, 2017

Published in Issue

Year 2018 Volume: 2 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.32571/ijct.338403

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA59CB25JK

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Eskalen, H., & Özğan, Ş. (2018). Examining phase response curve of nerve cell by using three different methods. International Journal of Chemistry and Technology, 2(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.32571/ijct.338403

AMA

1.Eskalen H, Özğan Ş. Examining phase response curve of nerve cell by using three different methods. Int. J. Chem. Technol. 2018;2(1):1-9. doi:10.32571/ijct.338403

Chicago

Eskalen, Hasan, and Şükrü Özğan. 2018. “Examining Phase Response Curve of Nerve Cell by Using Three Different Methods”. International Journal of Chemistry and Technology 2 (1): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.32571/ijct.338403.

EndNote

Eskalen H, Özğan Ş (June 1, 2018) Examining phase response curve of nerve cell by using three different methods. International Journal of Chemistry and Technology 2 1 1–9.

IEEE

[1]H. Eskalen and Ş. Özğan, “Examining phase response curve of nerve cell by using three different methods”, Int. J. Chem. Technol., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–9, June 2018, doi: 10.32571/ijct.338403.

ISNAD

Eskalen, Hasan - Özğan, Şükrü. “Examining Phase Response Curve of Nerve Cell by Using Three Different Methods”. International Journal of Chemistry and Technology 2/1 (June 1, 2018): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.32571/ijct.338403.

JAMA

1.Eskalen H, Özğan Ş. Examining phase response curve of nerve cell by using three different methods. Int. J. Chem. Technol. 2018;2:1–9.

MLA

Eskalen, Hasan, and Şükrü Özğan. “Examining Phase Response Curve of Nerve Cell by Using Three Different Methods”. International Journal of Chemistry and Technology, vol. 2, no. 1, June 2018, pp. 1-9, doi:10.32571/ijct.338403.

Vancouver

1.Hasan Eskalen, Şükrü Özğan. Examining phase response curve of nerve cell by using three different methods. Int. J. Chem. Technol. 2018 Jun. 1;2(1):1-9. doi:10.32571/ijct.338403