Relationship between simultaneously recorded spiking activity and fluorescence signal in GCaMP6 transgenic mice

Abstract

Fluorescent calcium indicators are often used to investigate neural dynamics, but the relationship between fluorescence and action potentials (APs) remains unclear. Most APs can be detected when the soma almost fills the microscope's field of view, but calcium indicators are often used to image populations of neurons, necessitating a large field of view, generating fewer photons per neuron, and compromising AP detection. Here we characterized the AP-fluorescence transfer function in vivo for 48 layer 2/3 pyramidal neurons in primary visual cortex, with simultaneous calcium imaging and cell-attached recordings from transgenic mice expressing GCaMP6s or GCaMP6f. While most APs were detected under optimal conditions, under conditions typical of population imaging studies only a minority of 1AP and 2AP events were detected (often <10% and ~20-30%, respectively), emphasizing the limits of AP detection under more realistic imaging conditions.

Data availability

All data generated and analyzed in this study are available at https://portal.brain-map.org/explore/circuits/oephys

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Lawrence Huang

    Electrophysiology, Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Peter Ledochowitsch

    MindScope Program, Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Ulf Knoblich

    Structured Science, Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jérôme Lecoq

    MindScope Program, Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Gabe J Murphy

    Structured Science, Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Clay Reid

    Structured Science, Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8697-6797
  7. Saskia E J de Vries

    MindScope Program, Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3704-3499
  8. Christof Koch

    MindScope Program, Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Hongkui Zeng

    Structured Science, Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    hongkuiz@alleninstitute.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0326-5878
  10. Michael A Buice

    MindScope Program, Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Jack Waters

    Structured Science, Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    jackw@alleninstitute.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2312-4183
  12. Lu Li

    Structured Science, Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    lilu67@mail.sysu.edu.cn
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Allen Institute for Brain Science (program funds)

  • Lawrence Huang
  • Peter Ledochowitsch
  • Ulf Knoblich
  • Jérôme Lecoq
  • Gabe J Murphy
  • Clay Reid
  • Saskia E J de Vries
  • Christof Koch
  • Hongkui Zeng
  • Michael A Buice
  • Jack Waters
  • Lu Li

National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC31871055)

  • Lu Li

Guangdong Science and Technology Department (2017B030314026)

  • Lu Li

This work is funded by the Allen Institute for Brain Science. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Gary L Westbrook, Oregon Health and Science University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Experimental procedures were conducted in accordance with NIH guidelines and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of the Allen Institute for Brain Science under protocol number 1509.

Version history

  1. Received: September 6, 2019
  2. Accepted: March 5, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 8, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 21, 2021 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: April 26, 2021 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2021, Huang 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

  • 13,541
    views
  • 1,960
    downloads
  • 107
    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. Lawrence Huang
  2. Peter Ledochowitsch
  3. Ulf Knoblich
  4. Jérôme Lecoq
  5. Gabe J Murphy
  6. Clay Reid
  7. Saskia E J de Vries
  8. Christof Koch
  9. Hongkui Zeng
  10. Michael A Buice
  11. Jack Waters
  12. Lu Li
(2021)
Relationship between simultaneously recorded spiking activity and fluorescence signal in GCaMP6 transgenic mice
eLife 10:e51675.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.51675

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.51675

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Neuroscience
    Kenneth Chiou, Noah Snyder-Mackler
    Insight

    Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals the extent to which marmosets carry genetically distinct cells from their siblings.

    1. Neuroscience
    Flavio J Schmidig, Simon Ruch, Katharina Henke
    Research Article

    We are unresponsive during slow-wave sleep but continue monitoring external events for survival. Our brain wakens us when danger is imminent. If events are non-threatening, our brain might store them for later consideration to improve decision-making. To test this hypothesis, we examined whether novel vocabulary consisting of simultaneously played pseudowords and translation words are encoded/stored during sleep, and which neural-electrical events facilitate encoding/storage. An algorithm for brain-state-dependent stimulation selectively targeted word pairs to slow-wave peaks or troughs. Retrieval tests were given 12 and 36 hr later. These tests required decisions regarding the semantic category of previously sleep-played pseudowords. The sleep-played vocabulary influenced awake decision-making 36 hr later, if targeted to troughs. The words’ linguistic processing raised neural complexity. The words’ semantic-associative encoding was supported by increased theta power during the ensuing peak. Fast-spindle power ramped up during a second peak likely aiding consolidation. Hence, new vocabulary played during slow-wave sleep was stored and influenced decision-making days later.