NINscope, a versatile miniscope for multi-region circuit investigations

  1. Andres de Groot
  2. Bastijn JG van den Boom
  3. Romano M van Genderen
  4. Joris Coppens
  5. John van Veldhuijzen
  6. Joop Bos
  7. Hugo Hoedemaker
  8. Mario Negrello
  9. Ingo Willuhn
  10. Chris I De Zeeuw  Is a corresponding author
  11. Tycho M Hoogland  Is a corresponding author
  1. Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Netherlands
  2. TU Delft, Netherlands
  3. Erasmus Medical Center, Netherlands

Abstract

Miniaturized fluorescence microscopes (miniscopes) have been instrumental to monitor neural signals during unrestrained behavior and their open-source versions have made them affordable. Often, the footprint and weight of open-source miniscopes is sacrificed for added functionality. Here, we present NINscope: a light-weight miniscope with a small footprint that integrates a high-sensitivity image sensor, an inertial measurement unit and an LED driver for an external optogenetic probe. We use it to perform the first concurrent cellular resolution recordings from cerebellum and cerebral cortex in unrestrained mice, demonstrate its optogenetic stimulation capabilities to examine cerebello-cerebral or cortico-striatal connectivity, and replicate findings of action encoding in dorsal striatum. In combination with cross-platform control software, our miniscope is a versatile addition to the expanding toolbox of open-source miniscopes that will increase access to multi-region circuit investigations during unrestrained behavior.

Data availability

Hardware, firmware and software have been deposited at GitHub under an MIT license.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Andres de Groot

    Netherlands Brain Bank, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Bastijn JG van den Boom

    Netherlands Brain Bank, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0853-3763
  3. Romano M van Genderen

    Faculty of Applied Sciences, TU Delft, Delft, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Joris Coppens

    Netherlands Brain Bank, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. John van Veldhuijzen

    Netherlands Brain Bank, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Joop Bos

    Mechatronics, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Hugo Hoedemaker

    Mechatronics, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Mario Negrello

    Department of Neuroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ingo Willuhn

    Mechatronics, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6540-6894
  10. Chris I De Zeeuw

    Department of Neuroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    c.dezeeuw@erasmusmc.nl
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5628-8187
  11. Tycho M Hoogland

    Department of Neuroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    t.hoogland@erasmusmc.nl
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7444-9279

Funding

Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (240-840100)

  • Chris I De Zeeuw
  • Tycho M Hoogland

Topsector Life Sciences & Health (LSHM18001)

  • Tycho M Hoogland

H2020 European Research Council (ERC-2014-STG 638013)

  • Ingo Willuhn

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (2015/06367/ALW 864.14.010)

  • Ingo Willuhn

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (ALWOP.2015.076)

  • Chris I De Zeeuw
  • Tycho M Hoogland

H2020 European Research Council (ERC-adv ERC-POC)

  • Chris I De Zeeuw

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All performed experiments were licensed by the Dutch Competent Authority and approved by the local Animal Welfare Body, following the European guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals Directive 2010/63/EU.

Copyright

© 2020, de Groot et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 10,503
    views
  • 1,226
    downloads
  • 123
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Andres de Groot
  2. Bastijn JG van den Boom
  3. Romano M van Genderen
  4. Joris Coppens
  5. John van Veldhuijzen
  6. Joop Bos
  7. Hugo Hoedemaker
  8. Mario Negrello
  9. Ingo Willuhn
  10. Chris I De Zeeuw
  11. Tycho M Hoogland
(2020)
NINscope, a versatile miniscope for multi-region circuit investigations
eLife 9:e49987.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49987

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49987

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Lisa M Bas, Ian D Roberts ... Anita Tusche
    Research Article

    People selectively help others based on perceptions of their merit or need. Here, we develop a neurocomputational account of how these social perceptions translate into social choice. Using a novel fMRI social perception task, we show that both merit and need perceptions recruited the brain’s social inference network. A behavioral computational model identified two non-exclusive mechanisms underlying variance in social perceptions: a consistent tendency to perceive others as meritorious/needy (bias) and a propensity to sample and integrate normative evidence distinguishing high from low merit/need in other people (sensitivity). Variance in people’s merit (but not need) bias and sensitivity independently predicted distinct aspects of altruism in a social choice task completed months later. An individual’s merit bias predicted context-independent variance in people’s overall other-regard during altruistic choice, biasing people toward prosocial actions. An individual’s merit sensitivity predicted context-sensitive discrimination in generosity toward high and low merit recipients by influencing other- and self-regard during altruistic decision-making. This context-sensitive perception–action link was associated with activation in the right temporoparietal junction. Together, these findings point toward stable, biologically based individual differences in perceptual processes related to abstract social concepts like merit, and suggest that these differences may have important behavioral implications for an individual’s tendency toward favoritism or discrimination in social settings.

    1. Neuroscience
    Weihua Cai, Arkady Khoutorsky
    Insight

    Mice lacking two neuropeptides thought to be essential for processing pain show no change in how they respond to a wide range of harmful stimuli.