An adaptable, reusable, and light implant for chronic Neuropixels probes

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript by Bimbard et al., a new method to perform stable recordings over long periods of time with neuropixels, as well as the technical details on how the electrodes can be explanted for follow-up reuse, is provided. I think the description of all parts of the method is very clear, and the validation analyses (n of units per day over time, RMS over recording days...) are very convincing. I however missed a stronger emphasis on why this could provide a big impact on the ephys community, by enabling new analyses, new behavior correlation studies, or neurophysiological mechanisms across temporal scales that were previously inaccessible with high temporal resolution (i.e. not with imaging).

Strengths:

Open source method. Validation across laboratories. Across species (mice and rats) demonstration of its use and in different behavioral conditions (head-fixed and freely moving).

Weaknesses:

Weak emphasis on what can be enabled with this new method that didn't exist before.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This work by Bimbard et al., introduces a new implant for Neuropixels probes. While Neuropixels probes have critically improved and extended our ability to record the activity of a large number of neurons with high temporal resolution, the use of these expensive devices in chronic experiments has so far been hampered by the difficulty of safely implanting them and, importantly, to explant and reuse them after conclusion of the experiment. The authors present a newly designed two-part implant, consisting of a docking and a payload module, that allows for secure implantation and straightforward recovery of the probes. The implant is lightweight, making it amenable for use in mice and rats, and customizable. The authors provide schematics and files for printing of the implants, which can be easily modified and adapted to custom experiments by researchers with little to no design experience. Importantly, the authors demonstrate the successful use of this implant across multiple use cases, in head-fixed and freely moving experiments, in mice and rats, with different versions of Neuropixels probes, and across 8 different labs. Taken together, the presented implants promise to make chronic Neuropixel recordings and long-term studies of neuronal activity significantly easier and attainable for both current and future Neuropixels users.

Strengths:

- The implants have been successfully tested across 8 different laboratories, in mice and rats, in head-fixed and freely moving conditions, and have been adapted in multiple ways for a number of distinct experiments.

- Implants are easily customizable and the authors provide a straightforward approach for customization across multiple design dimensions even for researchers not experienced in design.

- The authors provide clear and straightforward descriptions of the construction, implantation, and explant of the described implants.

- The split of the implant into a docking and payload module makes reuse even in different experiments (using different docking modules) easy.

- The authors demonstrate that implants can be re-used multiple times and still allow for high-quality recordings.

- The authors show that the chronic implantations allow for the tracking of individual neurons across days and weeks (using additional software tracking solutions), which is critical for a large number of experiments requiring the description of neuronal activity, e.g. throughout learning processes.

- The authors show that implanted animals can even perform complex behavioral tasks, with no apparent reduction in their performance.

Weaknesses:

- While implanted animals can still perform complex behavioral tasks, the authors describe that the implants may reduce the animals' mobility, as measured by prolonged reaction times. However, the presented data does not allow us to judge whether this effect is specifically due to the presented implant or whether any implant or just tethering of the animals per se would have the same effects.

- While the authors make certain comparisons to other, previously published approaches for chronic implantation and re-use of Neuropixels probes, it is hard to make conclusive comparisons and judge the advantages of the current implant. For example, while the authors emphasize that the lower weight of their implant allows them to perform recordings in mice (and is surely advantageous), the previously described, heavier implants they mention (Steinmetz et al., 2021; van Daal et al., 2021), have also been used in mice. Whether the weight difference makes a difference in practice therefore remains somewhat unclear.

- The non-permanent integration of the headstages into the implant, while allowing for the use of the same headstage for multiple animals in parallel, requires repeated connections and does not provide strong protection for the implant. This may especially be an issue for the use in rats, requiring additional protective components as in the presented rat experiments.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Bimbard and colleagues describe a new implant apparatus called "Apollo Implant", which should facilitate recording in freely moving rodents (mice and rats) using Neuropixels probes. The authors collected data from both mice and rats, they used 3 different versions of Neuropixels, multiple labs have already adopted this method, which is impressive. They openly share their CAD designs and surgery protocol to further facilitate the adaptation of their method.

Strengths:

Overall, the "Apollo Implant" is easy to use and adapt, as it has been used in other laboratories successfully and custom modifications are already available. The device is reproducible using common 3D printing services and can be easily modified thanks to its CAD design (the video explaining this is extremely helpful). The weight and price are amazing compared to other systems for rigid silicon probes allowing a wide range of use of the "Apollo Implant".

Weaknesses:

The "Apollo Implant" can only handle Neuropixels probes. It cannot hold other widely used and commercially available silicon probes. Certain angles and distances are not possible in their current form (distance between probes 1.8 to 4mm, implantation depth 2-6.5 mm, or angle of insertion up to 20 degrees).

Author response:

Reviewer 1:

Summary:

In this manuscript by Bimbard et al., a new method to perform stable recordings over long periods of time with neuropixels, as well as the technical details on how the electrodes can be explanted for follow-up reuse, is provided. I think the description of all parts of the method is very clear, and the validation analyses (n of units per day over time, RMS over recording days...) are very convincing. I however missed a stronger emphasis on why this could provide a big impact on the ephys community, by enabling new analyses, new behavior correlation studies, or neurophysiological mechanisms across temporal scales

Strengths:

Open source method. Validation across laboratories. Across species (mice and rats) demonstration of its use and in different behavioral conditions (head-fixed and freely moving).

Weaknesses:

Weak emphasis on what can be enabled with this new method that didn't exist before.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the limited discussion around scientific impact. Our implant has several advantages which combine to make it much more accessible than previous solutions. This enables a variety of recording configurations that would not have been possible with previous designs, facilitating recordings from a wider range of brain regions, animals, and experimental setups. In short, there are three key advances:

(1) Adaptability: The CAD files can be readily adapted to a wide range of configurations (implantation depth, angle, position of headstage, etc.). Labs have already, modified the design to optimise for their needs, and re-shared with the community.

(2) Weight: Because of the lightweight design, experimenters can i) perform complex and demanding freely moving tasks as we exemplify in the manuscript, and ii) implant female and water restricted mice while respecting animal welfare weight limitations.

(3) Cost: At ~$10, our implant is significantly cheaper than published alternatives, which makes it affordable to more labs and means that testing modifications is cost-effective.

We will make these features clearer in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2:

Summary:

This work by Bimbard et al., introduces a new implant for Neuropixels probes. While Neuropixels probes have critically improved and extended our ability to record the activity of a large number of neurons with high temporal resolution, the use of these expensive devices in chronic experiments has so far been hampered by the difficulty of safely implanting them and, importantly, to explant and reuse them after conclusion of the experiment. The authors present a newly designed two-part implant, consisting of a docking and a payload module, that allows for secure implantation and straightforward recovery of the probes. The implant is lightweight, making it amenable for use in mice and rats, and customizable. The authors provide schematics and files for printing of the implants, which can be easily modified and adapted to custom experiments by researchers with little to no design experience. Importantly, the authors demonstrate the successful use of this implant across multiple use cases, in head-fixed and freely moving experiments, in mice and rats, with different versions of Neuropixels probes, and across 8 different labs. Taken together, the presented implants promise to make chronic Neuropixel recordings and long-term studies of neuronal activity significantly easier and attainable for both current and future Neuropixels users.

Strengths:

- The implants have been successfully tested across 8 different laboratories, in mice and rats, in head-fixed and freely moving conditions, and have been adapted in multiple ways for a number of distinct experiments.

- Implants are easily customizable and the authors provide a straightforward approach for customization across multiple design dimensions even for researchers not experienced in design.

- The authors provide clear and straightforward descriptions of the construction, implantation, and explant of the described implants.

- The split of the implant into a docking and payload module makes reuse even in different experiments (using different docking modules) easy.

- The authors demonstrate that implants can be re-used multiple times and still allow for high-quality recordings.

- The authors show that the chronic implantations allow for the tracking of individual neurons across days and weeks (using additional software tracking solutions), which is critical for a large number of experiments requiring the description of neuronal activity, e.g. throughout learning processes.

- The authors show that implanted animals can even perform complex behavioral tasks, with no apparent reduction in their performance.

Weaknesses:

- While implanted animals can still perform complex behavioral tasks, the authors describe that the implants may reduce the animals' mobility, as measured by prolonged reaction times. However, the presented data does not allow us to judge whether this effect is specifically due to the presented implant or whether any implant or just tethering of the animals per se would have the same effects.

The reviewer is correct: some of the differences in mouse reaction time could be due to the tether rather than the implant. As these experiments were also performed in water-restricted female mice with the heavier Neuropixels 1.0 implant, our data represent the maximal impact of the implant, and we will highlight this in the revision.

- While the authors make certain comparisons to other, previously published approaches for chronic implantation and re-use of Neuropixels probes, it is hard to make conclusive comparisons and judge the advantages of the current implant. For example, while the authors emphasize that the lower weight of their implant allows them to perform recordings in mice (and is surely advantageous), the previously described, heavier implants they mention (Steinmetz et al., 2021; van Daal et al., 2021), have also been used in mice. Whether the weight difference makes a difference in practice therefore remains somewhat unclear.

The reviewer is correct: without a direct comparison, we cannot be certain that our smaller, lighter implant improves behavioural results (although this is supported by the literature, e.g. Newman et al, 2023). However, the reduced weight of our implant is critical for several laboratories represented in this manuscript due to animal welfare requirements. Indeed, in Daal et al the authors “recommend a [mouse] weight of >25 g for implanting Neuropixels 1.0 probes.” This limit precludes using (the vast majority of) female mice, or water-restricted animals. Conversely, our implant can be routinely used with lighter, water-restricted male and female mice. We will emphasise this point in the revision.

- The non-permanent integration of the headstages into the implant, while allowing for the use of the same headstage for multiple animals in parallel, requires repeated connections and does not provide strong protection for the implant. This may especially be an issue for the use in rats, requiring additional protective components as in the presented rat experiments.

We apologise for not clarifying the various headstage options in the manuscript and we will address this in the revision. Our repository has headplate holder designs (in the XtraModifications/Mouse_FreelyMoving folder). This allows leaving the headstage on the implant, and thus minimize the number of connections (albeit increasing the weight for the mouse). Indeed, mice recorded while performing the task described in our manuscript had the head-stage semi-permanently integrated to the implant, and we will highlight this in the revision.

Reviewer 3:

Summary:

In this manuscript, Bimbard and colleagues describe a new implant apparatus called "Apollo Implant", which should facilitate recording in freely moving rodents (mice and rats) using Neuropixels probes. The authors collected data from both mice and rats, they used 3 different versions of Neuropixels, multiple labs have already adopted this method, which is impressive. They openly share their CAD designs and surgery protocol to further facilitate the adaptation of their method.

Strengths:

Overall, the "Apollo Implant" is easy to use and adapt, as it has been used in other laboratories successfully and custom modifications are already available. The device is reproducible using common 3D printing services and can be easily modified thanks to its CAD design (the video explaining this is extremely helpful). The weight and price are amazing compared to other systems for rigid silicon probes allowing a wide range of use of the "Apollo Implant".

Weaknesses:

The "Apollo Implant" can only handle Neuropixels probes. It cannot hold other widely used and commercially available silicon probes. Certain angles and distances are not possible in their current form (distance between probes 1.8 to 4mm, implantation depth 2-6.5 mm, or angle of insertion up to 20 degrees).

We appreciate the reviewer’s points, but as we will discuss in the revised manuscript, one implant accommodating the diversity of the existing probes is beyond the scope of this project. However, because the design is adaptable, groups should be able to modify the current version of the implant to adapt to their electrodes’ size and format (and can highlight any issues in the Github “Discussions” area).

With Neuropixels, the current range of depths covers practically all trajectories in the mouse brain. In rats, where deeper penetrations may be useful, the experimenter can attach the probe at a lower point in the payload module to increase the length of exposed shank. We now specify this in the Github repository.

We have now extended the range of inter-probe distances from a maximum of 4 mm to 6.5 mm, and this will be reflected in the revised manuscript. Distances beyond this may be better served by 2 implants, and smaller distances could be achieved by attaching two probes on the same side of the docking module. In the next revision, we will add these points to the discussion.