Bayesian inference for biophysical neuron models enables stimulus optimization for retinal neuroprosthetics

  1. Jonathan Oesterle
  2. Christian Behrens
  3. Cornelius Schröder
  4. Thoralf Hermann
  5. Thomas Euler
  6. Katrin Franke
  7. Robert G Smith
  8. Günther Zeck
  9. Philipp Berens  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Tübingen, Germany
  2. The Natural and Medical Sciences Institute, Germany
  3. University of Pennsylvania, United States

Abstract

While multicompartment models have long been used to study the biophysics of neurons, it is still challenging to infer the parameters of such models from data including uncertainty estimates. Here, we performed Bayesian inference for the parameters of detailed neuron models of a photoreceptor and an OFF- and an ON-cone bipolar cell from the mouse retina based on two-photon imaging data. We obtained multivariate posterior distributions specifying plausible parameter ranges consistent with the data and allowing to identify parameters poorly constrained by the data. To demonstrate the potential of such mechanistic data-driven neuron models, we created a simulation environment for external electrical stimulation of the retina and optimized stimulus waveforms to target OFF- and ON-cone bipolar cells, a current major problem of retinal neuroprosthetics.

Data availability

All code and data will be made available upon publication on https://github.com/berenslab.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jonathan Oesterle

    Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Christian Behrens

    Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3623-352X
  3. Cornelius Schröder

    Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Thoralf Hermann

    Neurophysics group, The Natural and Medical Sciences Institute, Reutlingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Thomas Euler

    Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4567-6966
  6. Katrin Franke

    Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Robert G Smith

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Günther Zeck

    Neurophysics group, The Natural and Medical Sciences Institute, Reutlingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3998-9883
  9. Philipp Berens

    Institute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
    For correspondence
    philipp.berens@uni-tuebingen.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0199-4727

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01GQ1601)

  • Philipp Berens

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01IS18052)

  • Philipp Berens

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (EXC 2064 - 390727645)

  • Philipp Berens

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (BE5601/4-1)

  • Philipp Berens

Baden-Württemberg Stiftung (NEU013)

  • Günther Zeck
  • Philipp Berens

National Institutes of Health (EY022070)

  • Robert G Smith

National Institutes of Health (EY023766)

  • Robert G Smith

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 animal procedures were approved by the governmental review board (Regierungspräsidium Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Konrad-Adenauer-Str. 20, 72072 Tübingen, Germany) and performed according to the laws governing animal experimentation issued by the German Government.All procedures were approved by the governmental review board (Regierungspräsidium Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Konrad-Adenauer-Str. 20, 72072 Tübingen, Germany, AZ 35/9185.82-7) and performed according to the laws governing animal experimentation issued by the German Government.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Alexander Borst, Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology, Germany

Publication history

  1. Received: January 8, 2020
  2. Accepted: October 26, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 27, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: November 18, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Oesterle 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

  • 1,381
    Page views
  • 223
    Downloads
  • 5
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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. Jonathan Oesterle
  2. Christian Behrens
  3. Cornelius Schröder
  4. Thoralf Hermann
  5. Thomas Euler
  6. Katrin Franke
  7. Robert G Smith
  8. Günther Zeck
  9. Philipp Berens
(2020)
Bayesian inference for biophysical neuron models enables stimulus optimization for retinal neuroprosthetics
eLife 9:e54997.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54997

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Pedro J Gonçalves et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Mechanistic modeling in neuroscience aims to explain observed phenomena in terms of underlying causes. However, determining which model parameters agree with complex and stochastic neural data presents a significant challenge. We address this challenge with a machine learning tool which uses deep neural density estimators—trained using model simulations—to carry out Bayesian inference and retrieve the full space of parameters compatible with raw data or selected data features. Our method is scalable in parameters and data features and can rapidly analyze new data after initial training. We demonstrate the power and flexibility of our approach on receptive fields, ion channels, and Hodgkin–Huxley models. We also characterize the space of circuit configurations giving rise to rhythmic activity in the crustacean stomatogastric ganglion, and use these results to derive hypotheses for underlying compensation mechanisms. Our approach will help close the gap between data-driven and theory-driven models of neural dynamics.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Noushin Hadadi et al.
    Tools and Resources

    Thermal adaptation is an extensively used intervention for enhancing or suppressing thermogenic and mitochondrial activity in adipose tissues. As such, it has been suggested as a potential lifestyle intervention for body weight maintenance. While the metabolic consequences of thermal acclimation are not limited to the adipose tissues, the impact on the rest of the tissues in context of their gene expression profile remains unclear. Here, we provide a systematic characterization of the effects in a comparative multi-tissue RNA sequencing approach following exposure of mice to 10 °C, 22 °C, or 34 °C in a panel of organs consisting of spleen, bone marrow, spinal cord, brain, hypothalamus, ileum, liver, quadriceps, subcutaneous-, visceral- and brown adipose tissues. We highlight that transcriptional responses to temperature alterations exhibit a high degree of tissue-specificity both at the gene level and at GO enrichment gene sets, and show that the tissue-specificity is not directed by the distinct basic gene expression pattern exhibited by the various organs. Our study places the adaptation of individual tissues to different temperatures in a whole-organism framework and provides integrative transcriptional analysis necessary for understanding the temperature-mediated biological programming.