title: Quantitative differences in developmental profiles of spontaneous activity in cortical and hippocampal cultures.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Neural circuits can spontaneously generate complex spatiotemporal firing patterns during development. This spontaneous activity is thought to help guide development of the nervous system. In this study, we had two aims. First, to characterise the changes in spontaneous activity in cultures of developing networks of either hippocampal or cortical neurons dissociated from mouse. Second, to assess whether there are any functional differences in the patterns of activity in hippocampal and cortical networks.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We used multielectrode arrays to record the development of spontaneous activity in cultured networks of either hippocampal or cortical neurons every 2 or 3 days for the first month after plating. Within a few days of culturing, networks exhibited spontaneous activity. This activity strengthened and then stabilised typically around 21 days in vitro. We quantified the activity patterns in hippocampal and cortical networks using 11 features. Three out of 11 features showed striking differences in activity between hippocampal and cortical networks: (1) interburst intervals are less variable in spike trains from hippocampal cultures; (2) hippocampal networks have higher correlations and (3) hippocampal networks generate more robust theta-bursting patterns. Machine-learning techniques confirmed that these differences in patterning are sufficient to classify recordings reliably at any given age as either hippocampal or cortical networks.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Although cultured networks of hippocampal and cortical networks both generate spontaneous activity that changes over time, at any given time we can reliably detect differences in the activity patterns. We anticipate that this quantitative framework could have applications in many areas, including neurotoxicity testing and for characterising the phenotype of different mutant mice. All code and data relating to this report are freely available for others to use.
authors: Genes to Cognition Programme, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Genome Campus, CB10 1SA, Hinxton, UK. pc451@cam.ac.uk.|Current address: Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, Physiological Laboratory, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EG, UK. pc451@cam.ac.uk.
authors: Paul
authors: P
authors: Charlesworth
authors: Cambridge Computational Biology Institute, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, UK. ec526@cam.ac.uk.
authors: Ellese
authors: E
authors: Cotterill
authors: Genes to Cognition Programme, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Genome Campus, CB10 1SA, Hinxton, UK. s0094403@sms.ed.ac.uk.|Current address: Centre for Integrative Physiology, University of Edinburgh School of Biomedical Sciences, EH8 9XD, Edinburgh, UK. s0094403@sms.ed.ac.uk.
authors: Andrew
authors: A
authors: Morton
authors: Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences and Centre for Neuroregeneration, Chancellors Building, Edinburgh University, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK. seth.grant@ed.ac.uk.
authors: Seth G N
authors: SG
authors: Grant
authors: Cambridge Computational Biology Institute, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, UK. sje30@cam.ac.uk.
authors: Stephen J
authors: SJ
authors: Eglen
mesh_terms: D000200:Action Potentials; D000818:Animals; D002450:Cell Communication / Q000502:physiology; D002478:Cells, Cultured; D002540:Cerebral Cortex / Q000166:cytology* / Q000196:embryology; D006624:Hippocampus / Q000166:cytology* / Q000196:embryology; D051379:Mice; D008839:Microelectrodes; D009474:Neurons / Q000502:physiology*; D009928:Organ Specificity; D025341:Principal Component Analysis; D013826:Theta Rhythm / Q000502:physiology
references: Neuron. 2001 Dec 6;32(5):883-98
references: 11738033
references: Front Neural Circuits. 2014;8:87
references: 25104926
references: J Neurosci. 2006 Jun 21;26(25):6728-36
references: 16793880
references: Mol Biosyst. 2009 Dec;5(12):1527-35
references: 19763323
references: Neuroscience. 2007 Aug 10;148(1):294-303
references: 17614210
references: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010 Jan;11(1):18-29
references: 19953103
references: PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e105324
references: 25126851
references: J Physiol Sci. 2014 Nov;64(6):421-31
references: 25208897
references: Neurotoxicology. 2010 Aug;31(4):331-50
references: 20399226
references: Genome Biol. 2006;7(10):R100
references: 17076895
references: Neuron. 2002 Jan 31;33(3):325-40
references: 11832222
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Sep 16;105(37):13758-63
references: 18772389
references: Eur J Neurosci. 2004 May;19(10):2815-25
references: 15147315
references: Mol Cell Neurosci. 2011 Jun;47(2):93-9
references: 21440632
references: J Neurosci. 2014 Oct 22;34(43):14288-303
references: 25339742
references: J Neurosci. 2006 Aug 16;26(33):8465-76
references: 16914671
references: J Neurosci. 2010 Mar 24;30(12):4325-37
references: 20335468
references: Science. 2002 Jun 14;296(5575):2049-52
references: 12065842
references: Gigascience. 2014 Mar 26;3(1):3
references: 24666584
references: Brain Res. 2010 Apr 9;1324:34-42
references: 20138849
references: BMC Neurosci. 2006;7:11
references: 16464257
references: Trends Neurosci. 1997 Jan;20(1):38-43
references: 9004418
references: Neuron. 1993 Nov;11(5):923-38
references: 8240814
references: Nature. 2004 Dec 9;432(7018):758-61
references: 15592414
references: J Physiol. 2014 Apr 1;592(Pt 7):1545-63
references: 24366261
references: J Neurosci. 2009 Jun 10;29(23):7513-8
references: 19515919
references: J Neurosci Methods. 2001 Sep 30;110(1-2):17-24
references: 11564520
references: Neurotoxicology. 2014 Jan;40:75-85
references: 24325902