/
Cortical  excitability in Alzheimer‘s disease Cortical  excitability in Alzheimer‘s disease

Cortical excitability in Alzheimer‘s disease - PowerPoint Presentation

liane-varnes
liane-varnes . @liane-varnes
Follow
374 views
Uploaded On 2018-11-04

Cortical excitability in Alzheimer‘s disease - PPT Presentation

Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences Liepzig Germany National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology Center for Development of Advanced Medicine for Dementia Aichi Japan Dr Peng Wang ID: 713605

neural young adaptation time young neural time adaptation sef lccm recovery elderly activity healthy model nmda receptor patient constant connection cortical synaptic

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Cortical excitability in Alzheimer‘s ..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Cortical excitability in Alzheimer‘s disease

Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences Liepzig, Germany

National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Center for Development of Advanced Medicine for Dementia, Aichi, Japan

Dr. Peng Wang,

Dr. Akinori Nakamura

Dr. Thomas

Knösche, Dr. Burkhard Maess

Presntation for CogNeuro Journal Club, Singapore

17.06.2016Slide2

Challage of diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer`s

disease

The early stage is often overlooked, see it as „old age“.

The neurodegenerative processes starts

10-15

years before clinical symptom.

OR

1Slide3

Alzheimer`s disease

The first description of this disease was in 1907 by Dr. Alois

Alzheimer.

Senile plagues and neurofibrillary tangle were discoverd in the patient‘s brain.

. Senile plagues

. Neurofibrillary tangle

2Slide4

Beta-amyloid leads to neural hyperexcitability (1)

Presynaptic terminal

Postsynaptic component

1. promotes presynaptic glutamate

release

1.

Glial cell

2. inhibites glutamate recycling

Amyloid-ß (Aß)

(for review: Paula-Lima et al., 2013)

2.

Enhancement of the excitatory signal

pathway

(glutamatergic)

3Slide5

Beta-amyloid leads to neural hyperexcitability (2)

Presynaptic terminal

Postsynaptic component

Glial cell

Amyloid-ß (Aß)

(for review: Paula-Lima et al., 2013)

4

4.

4. Aberrant activation of NMDA

3.

3. increase of D-Serine release

Aberrant activation of NMDA receptorSlide6

Measure cortical excitability: Short-term adaptation of cortical responses

S1

R1

S2

S2

R2

S2

R2

S2

R2

A

daptation

Recover from the adaptation

ISI

Associating with the change in neural synaptic connection / neurotransmission

(Zucker & Regehr, 2002)

5Slide7

35 50 70 100 150 200

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

R2/R1

ratio

young

old

(David-Jürgens & Dinse, 2010)

ISI (

S2-S1) [ms]

6

Recovery

functions of cortical excitability are different between aged and young ratsSlide8

Effects of age on AMPA- to NMDA-mediated neurotransmission

(

Zhiyong

Yang et al

., 2008)

7Slide9

Research motivation

. Alzheimer‘s disease

Overactivation of NMDA

. Aging

Reduced activity of NMDA

. Experiment

Recovery function of cortical excitability

. Research intersts

8

Recovery function of AD ?

What is the neural mechnisms behind the observations?Slide10

Electrical stimulation of the right median nerve (wrist) at

130% of the motor threshold.

Six different recording types:

a single pulse

and pairs of pulses with an interval of 30, 60, 90, 120, and 150ms

SEF-R experiment - by Dr. Nakamura (1)

9Slide11

ISIs

S1

S2

S1

S2

Time

400-600ms

150 repetitions of each type with a randomly jittered

SOA of 400 to

600ms

Conducted

at

National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Aichi, Japan

SEF-R experiment - by Dr. Nakamura (1)

10Slide12

Neuromag Vectorview (204 planar gradiometers and 102 magnetometers, 1000 Hz sampling, 0.1-120 Hz bandwidth)

Epochs -100 to 300ms centered at the first pulse (S1)

SEF-R experiment - by Dr. Nakamura (2)

11

gradiometerSlide13

Electrical brain activity measurable by MEG/EEG: Postsynaptic potentials (PSP

) of synchronized pyramidal cells

Hansen,

Kringelbach

,

Salmelin

(eds.): MEG an introduction to methods. 2010

B

Single

pyramidal cell

: 0.2

pAm,

MEG measures sources

~10 nAm:

50,000 cells (

current x distance

)

Cylinder

of

~1mm

diameter

Palisade-

like

arrangement

(open

field

)

12Slide14

Selected the pair of gradiometers with the strongest response at 20msPCA of both gradiometer signals – 1st. PCA component

for the neural dynamic modeling

(Courtesy of Dr.

Maess

)

SEF-R experiment - by Dr. Nakamura (3)

13

nose

left

right

Selected Gradiometer pair

Time (s)

ft/cm

gradiometer B

out

(Picture from Matti Hämäläinen,2009)Slide15

Estimated neural activity in S1

fT/cm

ms

S1-N20m

S2-N20m

1st. PCA component of the chosen gradiometer pair

Both R1 and R2 responses in evoked signal

14Slide16

Estimated neural activity in S1

fT/cm

ms

S2-N20m

15

R1 response suppressedSlide17

Participents

Total = 50 ParticipentsHealthy elderly = 21 (67±5), PiB-Patients = 19 (76±4) (AD = 9 & MCI = 10), PiB+

Young = 10 (24±4)

Age

80

60

40

20

Patient H. elderly Young

16Slide18

Recovery

function (SEF-R): healthy elderly vs young

17

Healthy elderly

vs

Young

:

ISI90 (p<0,05), ISI120 (p<0,05), ISI150 (p<0,05)

s1-N20m/s2-N20 ratioSlide19

Recovery

function (SEF-R):healthy elderly vs patients

18

Healthy elderly

vs

Patients

:

ISI90 (p<0,05), ISI120 (p<0,001),ISI150 (p<0,05)

s1-N20m/s2-N20 ratioSlide20

Recovery

function (SEF-R): patients vs young

19

Patients

vs

Young

:

ISI60 (p<0,05), ISI90 (p<0,01), ISI120 (p<0,01),

ISI150 (p<0,01)

s1-N20m/s2-N20 ratioSlide21

Hypothesis

. Imaging

Different SEF-R among patients, healthy elderly and young

. Computation

Mapping imaging data into model parameters

20

glutamatergic

transmission and NMDAr activity ?

We are looking for ...

A generative model for the MEG data with biological interpretable parameters

Slide22

Neuron, membrane potential and firing rate

1. receive infomation

2. change in membrane potential

3. fire spikes

10mv

50ms

21Slide23

Neural Mass Model as generative model

22

The neural mass model summarizes the behaviors of millions of interacting neurons through two states: average membrane potential and average firing rate. (Lopes da

Silva et al., 1974)

MEG/EEG signals are generated by the massively synchronous pyramidal cells.

Cortical column is the basic functional unit of the cortex. (Mountcastle, 1997) Slide24

[mV]

[ms]

[1/s]

[mV]

u

(t)

Q(t)

Q

A

(t)

A

B

Q

A

u

B

u

B

(t)

Basic Equations of NMM: Connection form A to B

23

Receptor time constant

A.

B

.

.Neurotransmission strength

.Receptor time constant

u

B

(t)

Q

A

(t)Slide25

Modeling short-term synaptic adaptation

Depletion and recycling of the neurotransmitter

Ready, W(t)

Not ready, 1-W(t)

adaptation rate

presynaptic activity

recovery rate

24

C: synaptic connection strength

W: connection efficiency of synaptic connection strength (0<W ≤ 1)

Q: presynaptic average firing rate

n1: adaptation rate

n2: recovery rateSlide26

Modeling laminar organization in a cortical column

Cortex has layered structure.

Different neurons are organized in different layers

special local circuit among the neurons/layers

(Thomason & Lamy, 2007)

Local cortical circuit model

pyramidal cells

i

nhib. interneurons

excit. interneurons

II/III

V/VI

IV

(Wang & Knösche,2013)

input

25

certain

uncertainSlide27

Parameter Estimation: Bayesian framework

Constraints on neural

parameters

Models of

mean activity of neural populations

synaptic adaptation

Bayesian estimation

posterior

prior

likelihood

Parameters

q

are optimized so that the predicted matches the measured data

y

(Friston, 2002 & Kiebel et al., 2009)

26Slide28

0 150 350(ms)

Normalized neural activity

1

0

1

Fitting using LCCM

single

ISI30

ISI60

ISI150

ISI120

ISI90

experimental

LCCM

error

27

(Data from healthy elderly)Slide29

Fitting using LCCM(all 6 conditions)

28

GoFSlide30

One way ANOVA 59 free parameters Bonferoni correction (factor 59)

II/III

IV

V/VI

pyramidal cells

excit. interneurons

EIN->dPC:

connection strength

receptor time constant

2

9

Parameter statisticSlide31

The patient group showed stronger excitatory connection

connection strength EIN->dPC

*

*

p

< 0.01

Arbitrary unit

*

p

<0.05

The Patient group showed an hyper-excitation in glutamate pathway

30Slide32

The patient group showed larger receptor time constant

receptor time constant EIN->dPC

[ms]

*

*

p

<

0.01

*

*

p

<

0.01

The time constant represented a lumped effect from both fast AMPA and slow NMDA. In the Patient group, the weight moved to the NMDA side.31Slide33

Simulated receptor dynamics

1

0

Time (ms)

0 50 150 250

aged

patient

young

0 50 150 250

1

0

Normolized neural activity

Time (ms)

measured in rat nerocortex

(single neuron level)

fitted with exponential function

AMPA

NMDA

Normolized neural activity

(Angulo et al.,1999)

estimated synaptic

dynamics in LCCM

using group mean value

3

2Slide34

Age ranking: Receptor time constant

R

2 = 0.61 p < 0.01

age

Time constant (s)

3

3

useful biomarker

using MEG to imaging aging and disease progress

follow-up studySlide35

How to explain the „overshoot“ in

SEF-R)

34

Hypothesis: „Overshoot“ of SEF is caused by different adaptation-recovery time loop of excitatory and inhibitory pathway. Aged people has slower recovery of inhibitory than young one.

Explained by hyper-excitabilitySlide36

„Young“ can be explained by model with very fast adaptation on inhibitory pathway (or extremely, no adapatation ), but the „Patient“ and „Healthly elderly “ can not.

35Slide37

Comparison of LCCM and LCCM without INN adaptation

GoF

LCCM_no_INN_adaptation

LCCM

p_value

Patient

0,84

0,94

p<0,01

Healthy

0,83

0,93

p<0,01

Young

0,93

0,95p=0,4

Average LogModelEvidence

LCCM_no_INN_adaptation

LCCM

Young

1583

1458

Evidence for that: INN adaptation is necessory to simulate the data of Patient and Healthy Elderly. But, this adaptation effect is less impacted to explain the data of young

36Slide38

Conclusion

Distingushing aging and Alzheimer‘s disease using EEG/MEG (SEF-R)Different changing courses of NMDA-mediated neurotransmittion in patients and healthy elderly

Aging effect on recovery of inhibitory connections from adaptationImaging synaptic (receptor) dynamics using LCCM

Suggestion for the follow-up study

37Slide39

Thank you for your attentionSlide40

Model evidence

(Penny et al., 2012)

The log evidence for model m can be split into anaccuracy and a complexity term:

Log(

m

) = Accuracy(

m) - Complexity(

m)Slide41