Parallel reconstruction of the excitatory and inhibitory inputs received by single neurons reveals the synaptic basis of recurrent spiking

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this study the authors develop methods to interrogate cultured neuronal networks to learn about the contributions of multiple simultaneously active input neurons to postsynaptic activity. They then use these methods to ask how excitatory and inhibitory inputs combine to result in postsynaptic neuronal firing in a network context.

The study uses a compelling combination of high-density multi-electrode array recordings with patch recordings. They make ingenious use of physiology tricks such as shifting the reversal potential of inhibitory inputs, and identifying inhibitory vs. excitatory neurons through their influence on other neurons, to tease apart the key parameters of synaptic connections. The method doesn't have complete coverage of all neurons in the culture, and it appears to work on rather low-density cultures so the size of the networks in the current study is in the low tens.

1. It would be valuable to see the caveats associated with the small size of the networks examined here.
2. It would be also helpful if there were a section to discuss how this approach might scale up, and how better network coverage might be achieved.

The authors obtain a number of findings on the conditions in which the dynamics of excitatory and inhibitory inputs permit spiking, and the statistics of connectivity that result in this. This is of considerable interest, and clearly one would like to see how these findings map to larger networks, to non-cortical networks, and ideally to networks in-vivo. The suite of approaches discussed here could potentially serve as a basis for such further development.

3. It would be useful for the authors to suggest such approaches.
4. The authors report a range of synaptic conductance waveforms in time. Not surprisingly, E and I look broadly different. Could the authors comment on the implications of differences in time-course of conductance profiles even within E (or I) synapses? Is this functional or is it an outcome of analysis uncertainty?

One of the challenges in doing such studies in a dish is that the network is simply ticking away without any neural or sensory context to work on, nor any clear idea of what its outputs might mean. Nevertheless, at a single-neuron level one expects that this system might provide a reasonable subset of the kinds of activity an individual cell might have to work on.

5. Could the authors comment on what subsets of network activity is, and is not, likely to be seen in the culture?
6. Could they indicate what this would mean for the conclusions about E-I summation, if the in-vivo activity follows different dynamics?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors had two aims in this study. First, to develop a tool that lets them quantify the synaptic strength and sign of upstream neurons in a large network of cultured neurons. Second, they aimed at disentangling the contributions of excitatory and inhibitory inputs to spike generation.

For the quantification of synaptic currents, their methods allows them to quantify excitatory and inhibitory currents simultaneously, as the sign of the current is determined by the neuron identity in the high-density extracellular recording. They further made sure that their method works for nonstationary firing rates, and they did a simulation to characterize what kind of connections their analysis does not capture. They did not include the possibility of (dendritic) nonlinearities or gap junctions or any kind of homeostatic processes. I see a clear weakness in the way that they quantify their goodness of fit, as they only report the explained variance, while their data are quite nonstationary. It could help to partition the explained variance into frequency bands, to at least separate the effects of a bias in baseline, the (around 100 Hz) band of synaptic frequencies and whatever high-frequency observation noise there may be. Another weak point is their explanation of unexplained variance by potential activation of extrasynaptic receptors without providing evidence. Given that these cultures are not a tissue and diffusion should be really high, this idea could easily be tested by adding a tiny amount of glutamate to the culture media.

For the contributions of excitation and inhibition to neuronal spiking, the authors found a clear reduction of inhibitory inputs and increase of excitation associated with spiking when averaging across many spikes. And interestingly, the inhibition shows a reversal right after a spike and the timescale is faster during higher network activity. While these findings are great and provide further support that their method is working, they stop at this exciting point where I would really have liked to see more detail. A concern, of course is that the network bursts in cultures are quite stereotypical, and that might cause averages across many bursts to show strange behaviour. So what I am missing here is a reference or baseline or null hypothesis. How does it look when using inputs from neurons that are not connected? And then, it looks like the E/(E+I) curve has lots of peaks of similar amplitude (that could be quantified...), so why does the neuron spike where it does? If I would compare to the peak (of similar amplitude) right before or right after (as a reference) are there some systematic changes? Is maybe the inhibition merely defining some general scaffold where spikes can happen and the excitation causes the spike as spiking is more irregular?
The averaged trace reveals a different timescale for high and low activity states. But does that reflect a superposition of EPSCs in a single trial or rather a different jittering of a single EPSC across trials? For answering this question, it would be good to know the variance (and whether/ how much it changes over time). Maybe not all spikes are preceded by a decrease in inhibition. Could you quantitify (correlate, scatterplot?) how exactly excitation and inhibition contributions relate for single postsynaptic spikes (or single postsynaptic non-spikes)? After all, this would be the kind of detail that requires the large amount of data that this study provides.

For the first part, the authors achieved their goal in developing a tool to study synaptic inputs driving subthreshold activity at the soma, and characterizing such connections. For the second part, they found an effect of EPSCs on firing, but they barely did any quantification of its relevance due to the lack of a reference.

With the availability of Neuropixels probes, there is certainly use for their tool in in vivo applications, and their statistical analysis provides a reference for future studies.
The relevance of excitatory and inhibitory currents on spiking remains to be seen in an updated version of the manuscript.

I feel that specifically Figures 6 and 7 lack relevant detail and a consistent representation that would allow the reader to establish links between the different panels. The analysis shows very detailed examples, but then jumps into analyses that show population averages over averaged responses, losing or ignoring the variability across trials. In addition, while their results themselves pass a statistical test, it is crucial to establish some measure of how relevant these results are. For that, I would really want to know how much spiking would actually be restricted by the constraints that would be posed by these results, i.e. would this be reflected in tiny changes in spiking probabilities, or are there times when spiking probabilities are necessarily high, or do we see times when we would almost certainly get a spike, but neurons can fire during other times as well.
I would agree that a detailed, quantitative analysis of this question is beyond the scope of this paper, but a qualitative analysis is feasible and should be done. In the following, I am detailing what I would consider necessary to be done about these two Figures:

Figure 6C is indeed great, though I don't see why the authors would characterize synchrony as low. When comparing with Figure 4B, I'd think that some of these values are quite high. And it wouldn't help me to imagine error bars in panel 6D.
Figure 6B is useful, but could be done better: The autocovariance of a shotnoise process is a convolution of the autocovariance of underlying point process and the autocovariance of the EPSC kernel. So one would want to separate those to obtain a better temporal resolution. But a shotnoise process has well defined peaks, and the time of these local maxima can be estimated quite precisely. Now if I would do a peak triggered average instead of the full convolution, I would do half of the deconvolution and obtain a temporally asymmetric curve of what is expected to happen around an EPSC. Importantly, one could directly see expected excitation after inhibition or expected inhibition after excitation, and this visualization could be much better and more intuitively compared to panel 6E.
Panel D needs some variability estimate (i.e. standard deviation or interquartile range or even a probability density) for those traces.
Figure 6E: Please use more visible colors. A sensitivity analysis to see traces for 2E/(2E+I) and E/(E+2I) would be great.
Figure 6F: with an updated panel B, we should be able to have a slope for average inhibition after excitation for each of these cells. A second panel / third column showing those slopes would be of interest. It would serve as a reference for what could be expected from E-I interactions alone.
Figure 6G: Could the authors provide an interquartile range here?

Figure 7A: it may be hard to squeeze in variability estimates here, but the information on whether and how much variance might be explained is essential. Maybe add another panel to provide a variability estimate? The variability estimate in panel 7B and 7D only reflect variability across connections, and it would be useful to add panels for the timecourses of the variability of g (or E/(E+I) respectively).

As a suggestion for further analysis, though I am well aware that this is likely beyond the scope of this manuscript, I'd suggest the following analysis:
I would split the data into the high and low activity states. Then I would compute the average of E/(E+I) values for spikes. Assuming that spikes tend to happen for local maxima of E/(E+I) I would find local maxima for periods without spike such that their average is equal to the value for actual spikes. Finally, I would test for a systematic difference in either excitation or inhibition.
If there is no difference, you can make the claim that synaptic input does not guarantee a spike, and compare to a global average of E/(E+I).