Reproducibility of in vivo electrophysiological measurements in mice

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors explore a large-scale electrophysiological dataset collected in 10 labs while mice performed the same behavioral task, and aim to establish guidelines to aid reproducibility of results collected across labs. They introduce a series of metrics for quality control of electrophysiological data and show that histological verification of recording sites is important for interpreting findings across labs and should be reported in addition to planned coordinates. Furthermore, the authors suggest that although basic electrophysiology features were comparable across labs, task modulation of single neurons can be variable, particularly for some brain regions. The authors then use a multi-task neural network model to examine how neural dynamics relate to multiple interacting task- and experimenter-related variables, and find that lab-specific differences contribute little to the variance observed. Therefore, analysis approaches that account for correlated behavioral variables are important for establishing reproducible results when working with electrophysiological data from animals performing decision-making tasks. This paper is very well-motivated and needed. However, what is missing is a direct comparison of task modulation of neurons across labs using standard analysis practice in the fields, such as generalized linear model (GLM). This can potentially clarify how much behavioral variance contributes to the neural variance across labs; and more accurately estimate the scale of the issues of reproducibility in behavioral systems neuroscience, where conclusions often depend on these standard analysis methods.

Strength:

(1) This is a well-motivated paper that addresses the critical question of reproducibility in behavioural systems neuroscience. The authors should be commended for their efforts.

(2) A key strength of this study comes from the large dataset collected in collaboration across ten labs. This allows the authors to assess lab-to-lab reproducibility of electrophysiological data in mice performing the same decision-making task.

(3) The authors' attempt to streamline preprocessing pipelines and quality metrics is highly relevant in a field that is collecting increasingly large-scale datasets where automation of these steps is increasingly needed.

(4) Another major strength is the release of code repositories to streamline preprocessing pipelines across labs collecting electrophysiological data.

(5) Finally, the application of MTNN for characterizing functional modulation of neurons, although not yet widely used in systems neuroscience, seems to have several advantages over traditional methods.

Weaknesses:

(1) In several places the assumptions about standard practices in the field, including preprocessing and analyses of electrophysiology data, seem to be inaccurately presented:

a) The estimation of how much the histologically verified recording location differs from the intended recording location is valuable information. Importantly, this paper provides citable evidence for why that is important. However, histological verification of recording sites is standard practice in the field, even if not all studies report them. Although we appreciate the authors' effort to further motivate this practice, the current description in the paper may give readers outside the field a false impression of the level of rigor in the field.

b) When identifying which and how neurons encode particular aspects of stimuli or behaviour in behaving animals (when variables are correlated by the nature of the animals behaviour), it has become the standard in behavioral systems neuroscience to use GLMs - indeed many labs participating in the IBL also has a long history of doing this (e.g., Steinmetz et al., 2019; Musall et al., 2023; Orsolic et al., 2021; Park et al., 2014). The reproducibility of results when using GLMs is never explicitly shown, but the supplementary figures to Figure 7 indicate that results may be reproducible across labs when using GLMs (as it has similar prediction performance to the MTNN). This should be introduced as the first analysis method used in a new dedicated figure (i.e., following Figure 3 and showing results of analyses similar to what was shown for the MTNN in Figure 7). This will help put into perspective the degree of reproducibility issues the field is facing when analyzing with appropriate and common methods. The authors can then go on to show how simpler approaches (currently in Figures 4 and 5) - not accounting for a lot of uncontrolled variabilities when working with behaving animals - may cause reproducibility issues.

When the authors introduce a neural network approach (i.e. MTNN) as an alternative to the analyses in Figures 4 and 5, they suggest: 'generalized linear models (GLMs) are likely too inflexible to capture the nonlinear contributions that many of these variables, including lab identity and spatial positions of neurons, might make to neural activity'). This is despite the comparison between MTNN and GLM prediction performance (Supplement 1 to Figure 7) showing that the MTNN is only slightly better at predicting neural activity compared to standard GLMs. The introduction of new models to capture neural variability is always welcome, but the conclusion that standard analyses in the field are not reproducible can be unfair unless directly compared to GLMs.

In essence, it is really useful to demonstrate how different analysis methods and preprocessing approaches affect reproducibility. But the authors should highlight what is actually standard in the field, and then provide suggestions to improve from there.

(2) The authors attempt to establish a series of new quality control metrics for the inclusion of recordings and single units. This is much needed, with the goal to standardize unit inclusion across labs that bypasses the manual process while keeping the nuances from manual curation. However, the authors should benchmark these metrics to other automated metrics and to manual curation, which is still a gold standard in the field. The authors did this for whole-session assessment but not for individual clusters. If the authors can find metrics that capture agreed-upon manual cluster labels, without the need for manual intervention, that would be extremely helpful for the field.

(3) With the goal of improving reproducibility and providing new guidelines for standard practice for data analysis, the authors should report of n of cells, sessions, and animals used in plots and analyses throughout the paper to aid both understanding of the variability in the plots - but also to set a good example.

Other general comments:

(1) In the discussion (line 383) the authors conclude: 'This is reassuring, but points to the need for large sample sizes of neurons to overcome the inherent variability of single neuron recording'. - Based on what is presented in this paper we would rather say that their results suggest that appropriate analytical choices are needed to ensure reproducibility, rather than large datasets - and they need to show whether using standard GLMs actually allows for reproducible results.

(2) A general assumption in the across-lab reproducibility questions in the paper relies on intralab variability vs across-lab variability. An alternative measure that may better reflect experimental noise is across-researcher variability, as well as the amount of experimenter experience (if the latter is a factor, it could suggest researchers may need more training before collecting data for publication). The authors state in the discussion that this is not possible. But maybe certain measures can be used to assess this (e.g. years of conducting surgeries/ephys recordings etc)?

(3) Figure 3b and c: Are these plots before or after the probe depth has been adjusted based on physiological features such as the LFP power? In other words, is the IBL electrophysiological alignment toolbox used here and is the reliability of location before using physiological criteria or after? Beyond clarification, showing both before and after would help the readers to understand how much the additional alignment based on electrophysiological features adjusts probe location. It would also be informative if they sorted these penetrations by which penetrations were closest to the planned trajectory after histological verification.

(4) In Figures 4 and 6: If the authors use a 0.05 threshold (alpha) and a cell simply has to be significant on 1/6 tests to be considered task modulated, that means that they have a false positive rate of ~30% (0.05*6=0.3). We ran a simple simulation looking for significant units (from random null distribution) from these criteria which shows that out of 100.000 units, 26500 units would come out significant (false error rate: 26.5%). That is very high (and unlikely to be accepted in most papers), and therefore not surprising that the fraction of task-modulated units across labs is highly variable. This high false error rate may also have implications for the investigation of the spatial position of task-modulated units (as effects of the spatial position may drown in falsely labelled 'task-modulated' cells).

(5) The authors state from Figure 5b that the majority of cells could be well described by 2 PCs. The distribution of R2 across neurons is almost uniform, so depending on what R2 value one considers a 'good' description, that is the fraction of 'good' cells. Furthermore, movement onset has now been well-established to be affecting cells widely and in large fractions, so while this analysis may work for something with global influence - like movement - more sparsely encoded variables (as many are in the brain) may not be well approximated with this suggestion. The authors could expand this analysis into other epochs like activity around stimulus presentation, to better understand how this type of analysis reproduces across labs for features that have a less global influence.

(6) Additionally, in Figure 5i: could the finding that one can only distinguish labs when taking cells from all regions, simply be a result of a different number of cells recorded in each region for each lab? It makes more sense to focus on the lab/area pairing as the authors also do, but not to make their main conclusion from it. If the authors wish to do the comparison across regions, they will need to correct for the number of cells recorded in each region for each lab. In general, it was a struggle to fully understand the purpose of Figure 5. While population analysis and dimensionality reduction are commonplace, this seems to be a very unusual use of it.

(7) In the discussion the authors state: "This approach, which exceeds what is done in many experimental labs". Indeed this approach is a more effective and streamlined way of doing it, but it is questionable whether it 'exceeds' what is done in many labs. Classically, scientists trace each probe manually with light microscopy and designate each area based on anatomical landmarks identified with nissl or dapi stains together with gross landmarks. When not automated with 2-PI serial tomography and anatomically aligned to a standard atlas, this is a less effective process, but it is not clear that it is less precise, especially in studies before neuropixels where active electrodes were located in a much smaller area. While more effective, transforming into a common atlas does make additional assumptions about warping the brain into the standard atlas - especially in cases where the brain has been damaged/lesioned. Readers can appreciate the effectiveness and streamlining provided by these new tools without the need to invalidate previous approaches.

(8) What about across-lab population-level representation of task variables, such as in the coding direction for stimulus or choice? Is the general decodability of task variables from the population comparable across labs?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors sought to evaluate whether observations made in separate individual laboratories are reproducible when they use standardized procedures and quality control measures. This is a key question for the field. If ten systems neuroscience labs try very hard to do the exact same experiment and analyses, do they get the same core results? If the answer is no, this is very bad news for everyone else! Fortunately, they were able to reproduce most of their experimental findings across all labs. Despite attempting to target the same brain areas in each recording, variability in electrode targeting was a source of some differences between datasets.

Major Comments:

The paper had two principal goals:
(1) to assess reproducibility between labs on a carefully coordinated experiment
(2) distill the knowledge learned into a set of standards that can be applied across the field.
The manuscript made progress towards both of these goals but leaves room for improvement.

(1) The first goal of the study was to perform exactly the same experiment and analyses across 10 different labs and see if you got the same results. The rationale for doing this was to test how reproducible large-scale rodent systems neuroscience experiments really are. In this, the study did a great job showing that when a consortium of labs went to great lengths to do everything the same, even decoding algorithms could not discern laboratory identity was not clearly from looking at the raw data. However, the amount of coordination between the labs was so great that these findings are hard to generalize to the situation where similar (or conflicting!) results are generated by two labs working independently.

Importantly, the study found that electrode placement (and thus likely also errors inherent to the electrode placement reconstruction pipeline) was a key source of variability between datasets. To remedy this, they implemented a very sophisticated electrode reconstruction pipeline (involving two-photon tomography and multiple blinded data validators) in just one lab-and all brains were sliced and reconstructed in this one location. This is a fantastic approach for ensuring similar results within the IBL collaboration, but makes it unclear how much variance would have been observed if each lab had attempted to reconstruct their probe trajectories themselves using a mix of histology techniques from conventional brain slicing, to light sheet microscopy, to MRI imaging.

This approach also raises a few questions. The use of standard procedures, pipelines, etc. is a great goal, but most labs are trying to do something unique with their setup. Bigger picture, shouldn't highly "significant" biological findings akin to the discovery of place cells or grid cells, be so clear and robust that they can be identified with different recording modalities and analysis pipelines?

Related to this, how many labs outside of the IBL collaboration have implemented the IBL pipeline for their own purposes? In what aspects do these other labs find it challenging to reproduce the approaches presented in the paper? If labs were supposed to perform this same experiment, but without coordinating directly, how much more variance between labs would have been seen? Obviously investigating these topics is beyond the scope of this paper. The current manuscript is well-written and clear as is, and I think it is a valuable contribution to the field. However, some additional discussion of these issues would be helpful.

(2) The second goal of the study was to present a set of data curation standards (RIGOR) that could be applied widely across the field. This is a great idea, but its implementation needs to be improved if adoption outside of the IBL is to be expected. Here are three issues:

(a) The GitHub repo for this project (https://github.com/int-brain-lab/paper-reproducible-ephys/) is nicely documented if the reader's goal is to reproduce the figures in the manuscript. Consequently, the code for producing the RIGOR statistics seems mostly designed for re-computing statistics on the existing IBL-formatted datasets. There doesn't appear to be any clear documentation about how to run it on arbitrary outputs from a spike sorter (i.e. the inputs to Phy).

(b) Other sets of spike sorting metrics that are more easily computed for labs that are not using the IBL pipeline already exist (e.g. "quality_metrics" from the Allen Institute ecephys pipeline [https://github.com/AllenInstitute/ecephys_spike_sorting/blob/main/ecephys_spike_sorting/modules/quality_metrics/README.md] and the similar module in the Spike Interface package [https://spikeinterface.readthedocs.io/en/latest/modules/qualitymetrics.html]). The manuscript does not compare these approaches to those proposed here, but some of the same statistics already exist (amplitude cutoff, median spike amplitude, refractory period violation).

(c) Some of the RIGOR criteria are qualitative and must be visually assessed manually. Conceptually, these features make sense to include as metrics to examine, but would ideally be applied in a standardized way across the field. The manuscript doesn't appear to contain a detailed protocol for how to assess these features. A procedure for how to apply these criteria for curating non-IBL data (or for implementing an automated classifier) would be helpful.

Other Comments:

(1) How did the authors select the metrics they would use to evaluate reproducibility? Was this selection made before doing the study?

(2) Was reproducibility within-lab dependent on experimenter identity?

(3) They note that UCLA and UW datasets tended to miss deeper brain region targets (lines 185-188) - they do not speculate why these labs show systematic differences. Were they not following standardized procedures?

(4) The authors suggest that geometrical variance (difference between planned and final identified probe position acquired from reconstructed histology) in probe placement at the brain surface is driven by inaccuracies in defining the stereotaxic coordinate system, including discrepancies between skull landmarks and the underlying brain structures. In this case, the use of skull landmarks (e.g. bregma) to determine locations of brain structures might be unreliable and provide an error of ~360 microns. While it is known that there is indeed variance in the position between skull landmarks and brain areas in different animals, the quantification of this error is a useful value for the field.

(5) Why are the thalamic recording results particularly hard to reproduce? Does the anatomy of the thalamus simply make it more sensitive to small errors in probe positioning relative to the other recorded areas?