Cited by 211Epilepsy research and treatmentNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchNeural dynamics and brain function

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 5 of the 52 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Perineuronal nets decrease membrane capacitance of peritumoral fast spiking interneurons in a model of epilepsy

Open access

Abstract

Brain tumor patients commonly present with epileptic seizures. We show that tumor-associated seizures are the consequence of impaired GABAergic inhibition due to an overall loss of peritumoral fast spiking interneurons (FSNs) concomitant with a significantly reduced firing rate of those that remain. The reduced firing is due to the degradation of perineuronal nets (PNNs) that surround FSNs. We show that PNNs decrease specific membrane capacitance of FSNs permitting them to fire action potentials at supra-physiological frequencies. Tumor-released proteolytic enzymes degrade PNNs, resulting in increased membrane capacitance, reduced firing, and hence decreased GABA release. These studies uncovered a hitherto unknown role of PNNs as an electrostatic insulator that reduces specific membrane capacitance, functionally akin to myelin sheaths around axons, thereby permitting FSNs to exceed physiological firing rates. Disruption of PNNs may similarly account for excitation-inhibition imbalances in other forms of epilepsy and PNN protection through proteolytic inhibition may provide therapeutic benefits.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a patient-derived glioma mouse model, peritumoral fast-spiking interneurons (FSNs) lose perineuronal nets (PNNs) through tumor-released MMPs, increasing membrane capacitance and reducing firing. PNNs act as an electrostatic insulator that lowers specific membrane capacitance, allowing FSNs to sustain supra-physiological firing; MMP inhibition preserves PNNs and FSN excitability.

Key findings

  • Peritumoral cortex within 0.6 mm showed distance-dependent neuronal loss: NeuN+ density at 0.0–0.2 mm was 9.25 ± 1.63 vs contralateral 25.41 ± 0.68 and sham 26.12 ± 0.94; PV+ density at 0.0–0.2 mm was 0.58 ± 0.1 vs contralateral 2.52 ± 0.15 and sham 2.6 ± 0.25; WFA+ PNN density at 0.0–0.2 mm was 0.87 ± 0.16 vs contralateral 2.75 ± 0.13 and sham 2.78 ± 0.17.
  • Glioma-released gelatinases/MMPs degraded PNNs: gelatinase activity was higher in glioma mass (1851.47 ± 120.17) and PTC than sham (669.96 ± 34.56); the MMP inhibitor GM6001 reduced gelatinase activity and preserved PNN structure, with more WFA peaks in PNNs (GM6001 15.16 ± 0.65 vs GBM22 7.08 ± 0.63).
  • Peritumoral FSNs had higher membrane capacitance (43.84 ± 3.74 pF) than contralateral (28.82 ± 2.14 pF) and sham (30.11 ± 1.99 pF), and firing frequency was reduced by ~50%; GM6001 restored FSN capacitance (28.27 ± 1.36 pF) and input–output curves toward sham.
  • ChABC digestion of PNNs phenocopied the FSN changes: capacitance increased ~20–25%, maximal firing frequency fell ~20%, and real-time ChABC increased Cm from 43.53 ± 2.70 to 55.76 ± 3.43 pF while max AP frequency fell from 406.62 ± 14.39 to 322.5 ± 30.27 Hz; PNN degradation also shortened latency to ictal-like activity (control 73.67 ± 6.69 min vs ChABC 38.83 ± 3.40 min).

Methods

  • Patient-derived glioma xenolines GBM22 (glutamate-releasing via SXC) and GBM14 (non-glutamate-releasing) were implanted into C.B.17 scid mouse cortex; sham and contralateral controls were used, along with an astrocyte-specific β1-integrin knockout mouse model of astrogliosis and GM6001 MMP-inhibitor treatment.
  • Immunohistochemistry and confocal imaging quantified NeuN, PV, WFA-labeled PNNs, and GFAP; in situ zymography measured MMP-2/9 gelatinase activity; PNN integrity was assessed by WFA intensity and line-profile peak counts.
  • Acute slice patch-clamp electrophysiology recorded excitatory neurons and FSNs, with Lucifer yellow postrecording identification; PNNs were digested with ChABC, and Hodgkin–Huxley/Neuronify modeling plus ANOVA/t-tests were used for analysis.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: experimental limitations including incubation duration and low enzymatic activity prevented sufficient PNN degradation using an MMP cocktail, so ChABC was used instead.
  • Stated in the paper: PNN degradation may also alter synaptic activity and network excitability beyond the membrane-capacitance mechanism, and additional studies are warranted.
  • Evident from the text: the core evidence comes from mouse glioma models and acute slices, not human tissue; ChABC degrades CSPGs broadly rather than only PNNs, and some mechanistic links between tumor-released MMPs and PNN loss rely on spatial correlation plus inhibitor rescue rather than direct causal isolation.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-018-07113-0

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Fig. 1 Glioma-mediated neuronal cell loss with a preferential vulnerability of PV interneurons. a Representative images of NeuN (red), PV (green), and WFA (yellow) labeling, top to bottom, in glioma-injected (left) and sham-injected (right) cortical slices. Glioma mass (bottom left) can be discerned by highly dense DAPI-positive cell nuclei delimited by dashed line. Scale = 100 µm. b Mean density of NeuN+ neurons at 0.0–0.2 mm (9.25 ± 1.63), 0.2–0.4 mm (15.25 ± 0.94), and 0.4–0.6 mm (19.06 ± 1.28) distance from the glioma mass compared to equivalent position in contralateral (25.41 ± 0.68) and sham animals (26.12 ± 0.94). n = 6 mice. c Summary of PV+ neuron cell density at 0.0–0.2 mm (0.58 ± 0.1), 0.2–0.4 mm (0.77 ± 0.14), and 0.4–0.6 mm (1.2 ± 0.2) distance from the glioma mass compared to contralateral (2.52 ± 0.15) and sham (2.6 ± 0.25). n = 6 mice. d WFA+ PNNs in the PTC at 0.0–0.2 mm (0.87 ± 0.16), 0.2–0.4 mm (0.87 ± 0.1), and 0.4–0.6 mm (1.48 ± 0.14), from glioma mass compared to contralateral (2.75 ± 0.13) and sham (2.78 ± 0.17). n = 6 mice. e Normalized density of PV+ and NeuN+ neurons at 0.2–0.4 mm (PV+, 29.75 ± 5.45%; NeuN+, 58.39 ± 3.62%), and 0.4–0.6 mm (PV+, 46.18 ± 7.7%; NeuN+, 72.99 ± 4.88%) distance from the tumor border. No significant difference was observed in the density of PV+ and NeuN+ neurons in contralateral (PV+, 96.91 ± 5.90%; NeuN+, 97.29 ± 2.6%) and sham-injected animals (PV+, 100 ± 9.58%; NeuN+, 100 ± 3.62%). Normalized density of WFA+ PNNs in the 0.2–0.4 mm (PNN+, 31.37 ± 3.66%; NeuN+, 58.38 ± 3.61%) was significantly different compared to NeuN. n = 6 mice. Cell density was normalized to sham. Bar data represent mean ± SEM unless otherwise stated. ****P < 0.0001, ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test in (b−d); and two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test in (e)
Fig. 1 Glioma-mediated neuronal cell loss with a preferential vulnerability of PV interneurons. a Representative images of NeuN (red), PV (green), and WFA (yellow) labeling, top to bottom, in glioma-injected (left) and sham-injected (right) cortical slices. Glioma mass (bottom left) can be discerned by highly dense DAPI-positive cell nuclei delimited by dashed line. Scale = 100 µm. b Mean density of NeuN+ neurons at 0.0–0.2 mm (9.25 ± 1.63), 0.2–0.4 mm (15.25 ± 0.94), and 0.4–0.6 mm (19.06 ± 1.28) distance from the glioma mass compared to equivalent position in contralateral (25.41 ± 0.68) and sham animals (26.12 ± 0.94). n = 6 mice. c Summary of PV+ neuron cell density at 0.0–0.2 mm (0.58 ± 0.1), 0.2–0.4 mm (0.77 ± 0.14), and 0.4–0.6 mm (1.2 ± 0.2) distance from the glioma mass compared to contralateral (2.52 ± 0.15) and sham (2.6 ± 0.25). n = 6 mice. d WFA+ PNNs in the PTC at 0.0–0.2 mm (0.87 ± 0.16), 0.2–0.4 mm (0.87 ± 0.1), and 0.4–0.6 mm (1.48 ± 0.14), from glioma mass compared to contralateral (2.75 ± 0.13) and sham (2.78 ± 0.17). n = 6 mice. e Normalized density of PV+ and NeuN+ neurons at 0.2–0.4 mm (PV+, 29.75 ± 5.45%; NeuN+, 58.39 ± 3.62%), and 0.4–0.6 mm (PV+, 46.18 ± 7.7%; NeuN+, 72.99 ± 4.88%) distance from the tumor border. No significant difference was observed in the density of PV+ and NeuN+ neurons in contralateral (PV+, 96.91 ± 5.90%; NeuN+, 97.29 ± 2.6%) and sham-injected animals (PV+, 100 ± 9.58%; NeuN+, 100 ± 3.62%). Normalized density of WFA+ PNNs in the 0.2–0.4 mm (PNN+, 31.37 ± 3.66%; NeuN+, 58.38 ± 3.61%) was significantly different compared to NeuN. n = 6 mice. Cell density was normalized to sham. Bar data represent mean ± SEM unless otherwise stated. ****P < 0.0001, ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test in (b−d); and two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test in (e)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Disintegration of PNNs in the peritumoral cortex. a Confocal images of GBM22 PTC labeled with DAPI (blue), WFA (yellow), PV (green), and NeuN (red) showing spatial gradient of alterations. The distance between tumor border (white solid line) and each of the dotted lines is ~0.2 mm. Top panel images from <0.2 mm PTC show disintegrated PNNs (yellow) mostly lacking PV and NeuN and reduced neuronal cell numbers in close proximity of tumor. Middle panel images, in the 0.2–0.4 mm PTC, show a much higher number of NeuN+ neurons but few that contain PV. Bottom panel images from >0.6 mm PTC show mostly intact PNNs around PV neurons and high neuronal cell density (scale = 50 µm and 5 µm in large image and panel images, respectively) which are indistinguishable from sham (Supplementary Figure 1a-b). b WFA intensity within 0.0–0.2 mm (599.8 ± 80.84 au) and 0.2–0.4 mm (776.7 ± 134.8 au) PTC was significantly lower than sham (2315.0 ± 76.28 au) and contralateral (2012 ± 121.6 au). n = 6 mice. ****P < 0.0001, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test. c Confocal images of two representative PV neurons showing disintegrated architecture in GBM22 PTC compared to sham. Scale = 2 µm. d WFA fluorescence intensity of a line drawn along the periphery of PV neuron in the PTC (left in c) and sham (right in c) showing many high-intensity WFA peaks in sham compared to the PTC. Upper and lower blue dotted lines represent the threshold WFA intensity (50% of the highest intensity) for the PTC and sham, respectively. Upper and lower red two-headed arrows within two nearest WFA peaks indicate the size of a hole in PNN from the PTC and sham, respectively. e Disintegrated PNNs in the PTC show significantly lower numbers of WFA intensity peaks (sham, 21.15 ± 0.92, n = 13 PNNs from four mice; PTC, 9.88 ± 0.84, n = 9 PNNs from three mice). **p < 0.01, unpaired t test. PTC in (d) and (e) represent 0–0.4 mm area
Fig. 2 Disintegration of PNNs in the peritumoral cortex. a Confocal images of GBM22 PTC labeled with DAPI (blue), WFA (yellow), PV (green), and NeuN (red) showing spatial gradient of alterations. The distance between tumor border (white solid line) and each of the dotted lines is ~0.2 mm. Top panel images from <0.2 mm PTC show disintegrated PNNs (yellow) mostly lacking PV and NeuN and reduced neuronal cell numbers in close proximity of tumor. Middle panel images, in the 0.2–0.4 mm PTC, show a much higher number of NeuN+ neurons but few that contain PV. Bottom panel images from >0.6 mm PTC show mostly intact PNNs around PV neurons and high neuronal cell density (scale = 50 µm and 5 µm in large image and panel images, respectively) which are indistinguishable from sham (Supplementary Figure 1a-b). b WFA intensity within 0.0–0.2 mm (599.8 ± 80.84 au) and 0.2–0.4 mm (776.7 ± 134.8 au) PTC was significantly lower than sham (2315.0 ± 76.28 au) and contralateral (2012 ± 121.6 au). n = 6 mice. ****P < 0.0001, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test. c Confocal images of two representative PV neurons showing disintegrated architecture in GBM22 PTC compared to sham. Scale = 2 µm. d WFA fluorescence intensity of a line drawn along the periphery of PV neuron in the PTC (left in c) and sham (right in c) showing many high-intensity WFA peaks in sham compared to the PTC. Upper and lower blue dotted lines represent the threshold WFA intensity (50% of the highest intensity) for the PTC and sham, respectively. Upper and lower red two-headed arrows within two nearest WFA peaks indicate the size of a hole in PNN from the PTC and sham, respectively. e Disintegrated PNNs in the PTC show significantly lower numbers of WFA intensity peaks (sham, 21.15 ± 0.92, n = 13 PNNs from four mice; PTC, 9.88 ± 0.84, n = 9 PNNs from three mice). **p < 0.01, unpaired t test. PTC in (d) and (e) represent 0–0.4 mm areaCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Differential effects of epileptogenic GBM22 and nonepileptogenic GBM14 gliomas on cortical PV+ neurons and PNNs in the PTC. a Representative confocal images of DAPI (blue), PV (green), PNN (yellow), and NeuN (red) immunofluorescence in the PTC of GBM22 (left) and GBM14 (right). Scale = 20 µm. b Peritumoral PV+ cells density in GBM22 and GBM14 slices at 0.0–0.2 mm (GBM22, 0.58 ± 0.1; GBM14, 0.48 ± 0.1), 0.2–0.4 mm (GBM22, 0.79 ± 0.14; GBM14, 2.1 ± 0.31), and 0.4–0.6 mm (GBM22, 1.08 ± 0.18; GBM14, 2.26 ± 0.35) distance from the tumor (n = 6 mice in each bin). c The density of PNN+ cells in the PTC of GBM22 and GBM14 slices at 0.0–0.2 mm (GBM22, 0.85 ± 0.16; GBM14, 0.91 ± 0.17), 0.2–0.4 mm (GBM22, 0.9 ± 0.11; GBM14, 2.15 ± 0.35), and 0.4–0.6 mm (GBM22, 1.40 ± 0.16; GBM14, 2.32 ± 0.25). n = 6 mice in each bin. The density of PV+ neurons (b), and PNNs (WFA) (c) beyond 0.6 mm PTC in GBM14 and GBM22 was not significantly different from contralateral and sham. n = 6 mice. d Representative confocal images of DAPI (blue), PV+ (green), PNN+ (yellow), and NeuN (red) immunofluorescence from GBM22-implanted ipsilateral and contralateral hippocampal slices. Scale = 100 µm top and 20 µm bottom images. e WFA intensity in CA2 PNNs (peritumoral, 376.8 ± 81.12; contralateral, 1628 ± 155.2) n = 4 mice. f WFA intensity in stratum radiatum (peritumoral, 517.7 ± 57.66; contralateral, 1894 ± 153.2) n = 4 mice. All fluorescence intensities represent arbitrary units of fluorescence. ****P < 0.0001,***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test in (b) and (c); Welch’s t test in (e) and (f)
Fig. 3 Differential effects of epileptogenic GBM22 and nonepileptogenic GBM14 gliomas on cortical PV+ neurons and PNNs in the PTC. a Representative confocal images of DAPI (blue), PV (green), PNN (yellow), and NeuN (red) immunofluorescence in the PTC of GBM22 (left) and GBM14 (right). Scale = 20 µm. b Peritumoral PV+ cells density in GBM22 and GBM14 slices at 0.0–0.2 mm (GBM22, 0.58 ± 0.1; GBM14, 0.48 ± 0.1), 0.2–0.4 mm (GBM22, 0.79 ± 0.14; GBM14, 2.1 ± 0.31), and 0.4–0.6 mm (GBM22, 1.08 ± 0.18; GBM14, 2.26 ± 0.35) distance from the tumor (n = 6 mice in each bin). c The density of PNN+ cells in the PTC of GBM22 and GBM14 slices at 0.0–0.2 mm (GBM22, 0.85 ± 0.16; GBM14, 0.91 ± 0.17), 0.2–0.4 mm (GBM22, 0.9 ± 0.11; GBM14, 2.15 ± 0.35), and 0.4–0.6 mm (GBM22, 1.40 ± 0.16; GBM14, 2.32 ± 0.25). n = 6 mice in each bin. The density of PV+ neurons (b), and PNNs (WFA) (c) beyond 0.6 mm PTC in GBM14 and GBM22 was not significantly different from contralateral and sham. n = 6 mice. d Representative confocal images of DAPI (blue), PV+ (green), PNN+ (yellow), and NeuN (red) immunofluorescence from GBM22-implanted ipsilateral and contralateral hippocampal slices. Scale = 100 µm top and 20 µm bottom images. e WFA intensity in CA2 PNNs (peritumoral, 376.8 ± 81.12; contralateral, 1628 ± 155.2) n = 4 mice. f WFA intensity in stratum radiatum (peritumoral, 517.7 ± 57.66; contralateral, 1894 ± 153.2) n = 4 mice. All fluorescence intensities represent arbitrary units of fluorescence. ****P < 0.0001,***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test in (b) and (c); Welch’s t test in (e) and (f)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 PNN disintegration is not correlated with astrogliosis. a Confocal images of GBM22 PTC labeled with GFAP (green), WFA (yellow), and DAPI (blue) showing reactive astrocytes near disintegrated PNNs (bottom square and corresponding lower panels) and intact PNNs (upper square and corresponding upper panels) in proximal (0.0–0.3 mm) and distal (>0.6 mm) PTCs, respectively. Scale = 100 µm in the main image and 20 µm in the magnified images. Sham-treated controls did not show any reactive astrogliosis (Supplementary Fig. 1e). b High GFAP expression in the PTC (1127 ± 68.23, n = 5 mice) compared to sham (97.51 ± 0.83, n = 6 mice), but similar between proximal and distal PTCs (proximal PTC, 1127 ± 68.23; distal PTC, 1031 ± 22.08; n = 5 mice). c WFA intensity was significantly lower in proximal PTC (0.0–0.3 mm, 418.9 ± 27.06) compared to both distal PTC (>0.6 mm, 970.6 ± 66, n = 5 mice) and sham (1063 ± 28.47, n = 6 mice). d Representative images of GFAP and WFA immunofluorescence in wild-type (control) (top) and β1−/− (bottom) cortical sections showing reactive astrogliosis in the latter and intact PNNs. Scale = 200 µm. e Representative high-magnification 3D volume projection images of individual PNNs showing comparable WFA intensity and PNN architecture in wild-type (control) and β1−/−. Scale = 5 µm. f Box and whisker plot showing comparable WFA intensity in wild-type (control) (2942 ± 98.72) and β1−/− (2881 ± 105.3). n = 8 mice. g Significantly higher GFAP expression in β1−/− (1500 ± 77.83) than wild-type (control) (856.7 ± 42.13). n = 8 mice. ****P < 0.0001, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test in (b) and (c); unpaired t test in (f); and Welch’s t test in (g). All fluorescence intensities represent arbitrary units of fluorescence
Fig. 4 PNN disintegration is not correlated with astrogliosis. a Confocal images of GBM22 PTC labeled with GFAP (green), WFA (yellow), and DAPI (blue) showing reactive astrocytes near disintegrated PNNs (bottom square and corresponding lower panels) and intact PNNs (upper square and corresponding upper panels) in proximal (0.0–0.3 mm) and distal (>0.6 mm) PTCs, respectively. Scale = 100 µm in the main image and 20 µm in the magnified images. Sham-treated controls did not show any reactive astrogliosis (Supplementary Fig. 1e). b High GFAP expression in the PTC (1127 ± 68.23, n = 5 mice) compared to sham (97.51 ± 0.83, n = 6 mice), but similar between proximal and distal PTCs (proximal PTC, 1127 ± 68.23; distal PTC, 1031 ± 22.08; n = 5 mice). c WFA intensity was significantly lower in proximal PTC (0.0–0.3 mm, 418.9 ± 27.06) compared to both distal PTC (>0.6 mm, 970.6 ± 66, n = 5 mice) and sham (1063 ± 28.47, n = 6 mice). d Representative images of GFAP and WFA immunofluorescence in wild-type (control) (top) and β1−/− (bottom) cortical sections showing reactive astrogliosis in the latter and intact PNNs. Scale = 200 µm. e Representative high-magnification 3D volume projection images of individual PNNs showing comparable WFA intensity and PNN architecture in wild-type (control) and β1−/−. Scale = 5 µm. f Box and whisker plot showing comparable WFA intensity in wild-type (control) (2942 ± 98.72) and β1−/− (2881 ± 105.3). n = 8 mice. g Significantly higher GFAP expression in β1−/− (1500 ± 77.83) than wild-type (control) (856.7 ± 42.13). n = 8 mice. ****P < 0.0001, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test in (b) and (c); unpaired t test in (f); and Welch’s t test in (g). All fluorescence intensities represent arbitrary units of fluorescenceCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 PNN degradation by glioma-released proteases. a Representative images showing gelatinase activity (DQG-green), DAPI (blue), and PNN (WFA-yellow) immunofluorescence in GBM22 PTC (left), GM6001-treated glioma-implanted PTC (GBM22 + GM6001, middle), and sham (right) cortical sections. Scale = 50 µm. b Mean gelatinase activity in glioma mass (delimited by dashed line in (a)) (1851.47 ± 120.17), 0–0.2 mm (1048.74 ± 79.63), 0.2–0.4 mm (848.61 ± 64.25), and 0.4–0.6 mm (715.96 ± 61.89) PTC and sham (669.96 ± 34.56). n = 6 mice. c WFA fluorescent intensity at 0–0.2 mm (372.65 ± 54.10), 0.2–0.4 mm (599.17 ± 64.94), 0.4–0.6 mm (849.07 ± 113.94) PTC and sham (1282.73 ± 49.03). n = 5 mice. d Mean gelatinase activity in glioma mass (GBM22, 1851.47 ± 120.17; +GM6001, 1189.96 ± 98.43) and PTC (GBM22, 948.68 ± 54.21; +GM6001, 692.80 ± 23.61) was significantly lower in GBM22 + GM6001 group (also referred as +GM6001) than the GBM22 (nontreated) counterparts. n = 5 mice. e PNN numbers in +GM6001 group were significantly higher in 0.0–0.2 mm (GBM22, 0.43 ± 0.05; +GM6001, 1.14 ± 0.09), 0.2–0.4 mm (GBM22, 0.98 ± 0.10; +GM6001, 1.73 ± 0.12) and 0.4–0.6 mm PTC (GBM22, 2.05 ± 0.19; +GM6001 2.58 ± 0.19). n = 5 mice. f Representative 3D volume projections from within 0–0.4 mm PTC (dotted square in (a)) showing gelatinase activity (DQG) and PNN architecture (WFA) in GBM22, +GM6001 and sham groups. Scale = 5 µm. g Line intensity profile of a single PNN (in f) shows high intensity WFA peaks in GBM22, +GM6001 and sham groups. Dashed lines represent the threshold (50% of max WFA intensity) for WFA peak counts (in h). h Mean WFA peaks in PNNs from GBM22 (7.08 ± 0.63), +GM6001 (15.16 ± 0.65) and sham (16.05 ± 0.53). Data of GBM22, +GM6001, and sham are from 20, 22, and 17 PNNs, respectively (n = 4 mice). i Mean WFA fluorescence intensity in +GM6001 PTC was higher than GBM22 PTC (+GM6001, 656.96 ± 37.77; GBM22, 493.46 ± 51.21). n = 6 mice. PTC data in (d), (h), and (i) are from within 0–0.4 mm of tumor border. ****P < 0.0001, ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test in (b, c, h, i); two-way ANOVA, Sidak’s post-hoc test in (d, e). All fluorescence intensities represent arbitrary units of fluorescence
Fig. 5 PNN degradation by glioma-released proteases. a Representative images showing gelatinase activity (DQG-green), DAPI (blue), and PNN (WFA-yellow) immunofluorescence in GBM22 PTC (left), GM6001-treated glioma-implanted PTC (GBM22 + GM6001, middle), and sham (right) cortical sections. Scale = 50 µm. b Mean gelatinase activity in glioma mass (delimited by dashed line in (a)) (1851.47 ± 120.17), 0–0.2 mm (1048.74 ± 79.63), 0.2–0.4 mm (848.61 ± 64.25), and 0.4–0.6 mm (715.96 ± 61.89) PTC and sham (669.96 ± 34.56). n = 6 mice. c WFA fluorescent intensity at 0–0.2 mm (372.65 ± 54.10), 0.2–0.4 mm (599.17 ± 64.94), 0.4–0.6 mm (849.07 ± 113.94) PTC and sham (1282.73 ± 49.03). n = 5 mice. d Mean gelatinase activity in glioma mass (GBM22, 1851.47 ± 120.17; +GM6001, 1189.96 ± 98.43) and PTC (GBM22, 948.68 ± 54.21; +GM6001, 692.80 ± 23.61) was significantly lower in GBM22 + GM6001 group (also referred as +GM6001) than the GBM22 (nontreated) counterparts. n = 5 mice. e PNN numbers in +GM6001 group were significantly higher in 0.0–0.2 mm (GBM22, 0.43 ± 0.05; +GM6001, 1.14 ± 0.09), 0.2–0.4 mm (GBM22, 0.98 ± 0.10; +GM6001, 1.73 ± 0.12) and 0.4–0.6 mm PTC (GBM22, 2.05 ± 0.19; +GM6001 2.58 ± 0.19). n = 5 mice. f Representative 3D volume projections from within 0–0.4 mm PTC (dotted square in (a)) showing gelatinase activity (DQG) and PNN architecture (WFA) in GBM22, +GM6001 and sham groups. Scale = 5 µm. g Line intensity profile of a single PNN (in f) shows high intensity WFA peaks in GBM22, +GM6001 and sham groups. Dashed lines represent the threshold (50% of max WFA intensity) for WFA peak counts (in h). h Mean WFA peaks in PNNs from GBM22 (7.08 ± 0.63), +GM6001 (15.16 ± 0.65) and sham (16.05 ± 0.53). Data of GBM22, +GM6001, and sham are from 20, 22, and 17 PNNs, respectively (n = 4 mice). i Mean WFA fluorescence intensity in +GM6001 PTC was higher than GBM22 PTC (+GM6001, 656.96 ± 37.77; GBM22, 493.46 ± 51.21). n = 6 mice. PTC data in (d), (h), and (i) are from within 0–0.4 mm of tumor border. ****P < 0.0001, ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test in (b, c, h, i); two-way ANOVA, Sidak’s post-hoc test in (d, e). All fluorescence intensities represent arbitrary units of fluorescenceCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 Altered biophysical properties of excitatory and inhibitory neurons in the PTC. a Depolarized excitatory neurons in the PTC (61.49 ± 0.86, n = 80(11)) than in contralateral (67 ± 1.16, n = 22(6)), and sham (67.02 ± 0.38, n = 98(15)). b Membrane capacitance (Cm) of excitatory neurons (PTC, 72.90 ± 8.92, n = 17(10); contralateral, 67.46 ± 6.11, n = 17(8); sham, 73.93 ± 6.95, n = 27(10)). c Input resistance (Rin) of excitatory neuron in the PTC (PTC, 288.20 ± 15.82, n = 23(10); contralateral, 269.22 ± 10.35, n = 11(5); sham, 298.63 ± 14.47, n = 39(10)). d Threshold current of excitatory neurons in the PTC (134.76 ± 14.69, n = 13(8)); contralateral (177.55 ± 6.69, n = 18(8)); sham (171.33 ± 5.28, n = 39(10)). e Higher AP frequency of excitatory neurons in GBM22 PTC (n = 27(10)) than GBM14 (n = 12(7)), and sham (n = 36(10)). f Representative traces of excitatory neuron’s firing from sham (upper) and GBM22 PTC (lower) on −100pA (black) and 140pA (red) current steps. g Depolarized Vm of FSNs in GBM22 PTC (61.67 ± 1.01, n = 12(8)) compared to contralateral (68.14 ± 1.59, n = 7(6)) and sham (69.85 ± 0.67, n = 7(6)). h Higher Cm of FSNs in GBM22 PTC (43.84 ± 3.74, n = 13(8)) than in contralateral (28.82 ± 2.14, n = 9(8)) and sham (30.11 ± 1.99, n = 15(6)). i Rin of FSNs in the PTC (249.10 ± 17.65, n = 13(9)), contralateral (240.08 ± 9.07, n = 14(7)), and sham (252.64 ± 35.30, n = 13(7)) was not different. j Threshold current of FSNs in the PTC (82.75 ± 11.49, n = 8(6)), contralateral (100.57 ± 10.94, n = 7(5)) and sham (87.25 ± 16.06, n = 8(5)) was not different. k AP (Spike) frequency of FSNs in GBM22 PTC (n = 18(11)) and GBM14 PTC (n = 19(7)) was significantly lower than in sham (n = 10(7)). l Representative traces of FSN’s response from sham (upper) and GBM22 PTC (lower) on −100pA (black) and 140pA (red) current steps. n = cells(mice) in all. The units for membrane potential (Vm), threshold current, membrane capacitance (Cm) and input resistance (Rin) are mV, pA, pF, and MΩ, respectively. ****P < 0.0001, ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, one-way ANOVA in (a−d, g−j); two-way ANOVA in (e) (sham vs. GBM22) and (k) (GBM22 vs. sham); Tukey’s post-hoc test in all. ####P < 0.0001, #P < 0.05, two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test in (e) (GBM14 vs. sham) and (k) (GBM14 vs. sham)
Fig. 6 Altered biophysical properties of excitatory and inhibitory neurons in the PTC. a Depolarized excitatory neurons in the PTC (61.49 ± 0.86, n = 80(11)) than in contralateral (67 ± 1.16, n = 22(6)), and sham (67.02 ± 0.38, n = 98(15)). b Membrane capacitance (Cm) of excitatory neurons (PTC, 72.90 ± 8.92, n = 17(10); contralateral, 67.46 ± 6.11, n = 17(8); sham, 73.93 ± 6.95, n = 27(10)). c Input resistance (Rin) of excitatory neuron in the PTC (PTC, 288.20 ± 15.82, n = 23(10); contralateral, 269.22 ± 10.35, n = 11(5); sham, 298.63 ± 14.47, n = 39(10)). d Threshold current of excitatory neurons in the PTC (134.76 ± 14.69, n = 13(8)); contralateral (177.55 ± 6.69, n = 18(8)); sham (171.33 ± 5.28, n = 39(10)). e Higher AP frequency of excitatory neurons in GBM22 PTC (n = 27(10)) than GBM14 (n = 12(7)), and sham (n = 36(10)). f Representative traces of excitatory neuron’s firing from sham (upper) and GBM22 PTC (lower) on −100pA (black) and 140pA (red) current steps. g Depolarized Vm of FSNs in GBM22 PTC (61.67 ± 1.01, n = 12(8)) compared to contralateral (68.14 ± 1.59, n = 7(6)) and sham (69.85 ± 0.67, n = 7(6)). h Higher Cm of FSNs in GBM22 PTC (43.84 ± 3.74, n = 13(8)) than in contralateral (28.82 ± 2.14, n = 9(8)) and sham (30.11 ± 1.99, n = 15(6)). i Rin of FSNs in the PTC (249.10 ± 17.65, n = 13(9)), contralateral (240.08 ± 9.07, n = 14(7)), and sham (252.64 ± 35.30, n = 13(7)) was not different. j Threshold current of FSNs in the PTC (82.75 ± 11.49, n = 8(6)), contralateral (100.57 ± 10.94, n = 7(5)) and sham (87.25 ± 16.06, n = 8(5)) was not different. k AP (Spike) frequency of FSNs in GBM22 PTC (n = 18(11)) and GBM14 PTC (n = 19(7)) was significantly lower than in sham (n = 10(7)). l Representative traces of FSN’s response from sham (upper) and GBM22 PTC (lower) on −100pA (black) and 140pA (red) current steps. n = cells(mice) in all. The units for membrane potential (Vm), threshold current, membrane capacitance (Cm) and input resistance (Rin) are mV, pA, pF, and MΩ, respectively. ****P < 0.0001, ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, one-way ANOVA in (a−d, g−j); two-way ANOVA in (e) (sham vs. GBM22) and (k) (GBM22 vs. sham); Tukey’s post-hoc test in all. ####P < 0.0001, #P < 0.05, two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test in (e) (GBM14 vs. sham) and (k) (GBM14 vs. sham)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 7 Electrophysiological properties of inhibitory (FSNs) and excitatory neurons in the PTC of GM6001-treated mice. a Unaltered resting membrane potential (Vm) of FSNs in the PTC of GM6001-treated (62.88 ± 1.40, n = 18(5)) than in nontreated (GBM22) PTC (61.67 ± 1.01, n = 12(8)), but significantly different than in sham (69.85 ± 0.67, n = 7(6)). b Lower Cm of FSNs in the PTC of GM6001-treated (28.27 ± 1.36, n = 20(5)) than nontreated (43.84 ± 3.74, n = 13(8)), but similar to sham (30.11 ± 1.99, n = 15(6)). c Unaltered Rin of FSNs in GM6001-treated PTC (219.90 ± 15.69, n = 20(5)) compared to GBM22 PTC (249.10 ± 17.65, n = 13(9)) and sham (252.64 ± 35.30, n = 13(7)). d Threshold current of FSNs remained unaltered in GM6001-treated PTC (120.76 ± 8.96, n = 13(5)) compared to nontreated PTC (82.75 ± 11.49, n = 8(6)) and sham (87.25 ± 16.06, n = 8(5)). e Higher AP frequency of FSNs in GM6001-treated PTC (n = 12(5)) than in nontreated PTC (n = 18(11)) but not than in sham (n = 10(7)). f Representative Vm traces from nontreated (upper) and GM6001-treated PTC (lower) FSNs on −100pA (black) and 140pA (red) current steps. g Resting membrane potential (Vm) of excitatory neurons in GM6001-treated PTC (66.62 ± 0.77, n = 27(8)) remained similar to sham (67.02 ± 0.38, n = 98(15)), but was significantly higher than the nontreated PTC (61.49 ± 0.86, n = 80(11)). h Cm of excitatory neurons in GM6001-treated PTC remained unaltered (PTC, 72.90 ± 8.92, n = 17(10); GM6001-treated PTC, 67.00 ± 6.95, n = 26(8); sham, 73.93 ± 6.95, n = 27(10)). i Input resistance (Rin) of excitatory neurons in GM6001-treated PTC (244.64 ± 9.24, n = 27(6)) was not significantly different than in nontreated PTC (288.18 ± 15.82, n = 23(10)), but than in sham (298.63 ± 14.47, n = 39(10)). j Lower threshold current in excitatory neurons in nontreated PTC (134.76 ± 14.69, n = 13(8)) than in GM6001-treated PTC (138.75 ± 6.81, n = 24(8)) and sham (171.33 ± 5.28, n = 39(10)). k Higher AP (firing) frequency of excitatory neurons in GM6001-treated PTC (n = 25(5)) than in nontreated PTC (n = 27(10)) and in sham (n = 36(10)). l Representative Vm traces from nontreated PTC (upper) and GM6001-treated PTC (lower) excitatory neurons on −100pA and 60pA current steps. n = cells(mice) in all. The units for membrane potential (Vm), threshold current, membrane capacitance (Cm) and input resistance (Rin) are mV, pA, pF, and MΩ, respectively. ****P < 0.0001, ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05, one-way ANOVA in (a−d, g−j); two-way ANOVA in (e, k) (GM6001-treated vs. nontreated); Tukey's post-hoc test in all. ####P < 0.0001, ###P < 0.001, ##P < 0.01, #P < 0.05, two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test in (k) (GM6001-treated vs. sham)
Fig. 7 Electrophysiological properties of inhibitory (FSNs) and excitatory neurons in the PTC of GM6001-treated mice. a Unaltered resting membrane potential (Vm) of FSNs in the PTC of GM6001-treated (62.88 ± 1.40, n = 18(5)) than in nontreated (GBM22) PTC (61.67 ± 1.01, n = 12(8)), but significantly different than in sham (69.85 ± 0.67, n = 7(6)). b Lower Cm of FSNs in the PTC of GM6001-treated (28.27 ± 1.36, n = 20(5)) than nontreated (43.84 ± 3.74, n = 13(8)), but similar to sham (30.11 ± 1.99, n = 15(6)). c Unaltered Rin of FSNs in GM6001-treated PTC (219.90 ± 15.69, n = 20(5)) compared to GBM22 PTC (249.10 ± 17.65, n = 13(9)) and sham (252.64 ± 35.30, n = 13(7)). d Threshold current of FSNs remained unaltered in GM6001-treated PTC (120.76 ± 8.96, n = 13(5)) compared to nontreated PTC (82.75 ± 11.49, n = 8(6)) and sham (87.25 ± 16.06, n = 8(5)). e Higher AP frequency of FSNs in GM6001-treated PTC (n = 12(5)) than in nontreated PTC (n = 18(11)) but not than in sham (n = 10(7)). f Representative Vm traces from nontreated (upper) and GM6001-treated PTC (lower) FSNs on −100pA (black) and 140pA (red) current steps. g Resting membrane potential (Vm) of excitatory neurons in GM6001-treated PTC (66.62 ± 0.77, n = 27(8)) remained similar to sham (67.02 ± 0.38, n = 98(15)), but was significantly higher than the nontreated PTC (61.49 ± 0.86, n = 80(11)). h Cm of excitatory neurons in GM6001-treated PTC remained unaltered (PTC, 72.90 ± 8.92, n = 17(10); GM6001-treated PTC, 67.00 ± 6.95, n = 26(8); sham, 73.93 ± 6.95, n = 27(10)). i Input resistance (Rin) of excitatory neurons in GM6001-treated PTC (244.64 ± 9.24, n = 27(6)) was not significantly different than in nontreated PTC (288.18 ± 15.82, n = 23(10)), but than in sham (298.63 ± 14.47, n = 39(10)). j Lower threshold current in excitatory neurons in nontreated PTC (134.76 ± 14.69, n = 13(8)) than in GM6001-treated PTC (138.75 ± 6.81, n = 24(8)) and sham (171.33 ± 5.28, n = 39(10)). k Higher AP (firing) frequency of excitatory neurons in GM6001-treated PTC (n = 25(5)) than in nontreated PTC (n = 27(10)) and in sham (n = 36(10)). l Representative Vm traces from nontreated PTC (upper) and GM6001-treated PTC (lower) excitatory neurons on −100pA and 60pA current steps. n = cells(mice) in all. The units for membrane potential (Vm), threshold current, membrane capacitance (Cm) and input resistance (Rin) are mV, pA, pF, and MΩ, respectively. ****P < 0.0001, ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05, one-way ANOVA in (a−d, g−j); two-way ANOVA in (e, k) (GM6001-treated vs. nontreated); Tukey's post-hoc test in all. ####P < 0.0001, ###P < 0.001, ##P < 0.01, #P < 0.05, two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test in (k) (GM6001-treated vs. sham)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 8 PNNs modulate the firing rate of FSNs by reducing the membrane capacitance. a Representative Vm traces of FSNs in control (upper left) and ChABC-treated slices (upper right) on −100pA and 140pA current injections. Reduced AP frequency of FSNs in (lower left) ChABC-treated slices (n = 8(6)) than in control (n = 10(7)). Higher Cm (lower right) of FSNs in ChABC-treated slices (39.87 ± 3.56, n = 12(6)) than in control (30.11 ± 1.99, n = 15(8)). b Representative Vm traces of excitatory neurons in control (upper left) and ChABC-treated slices (upper right) on −100pA and 60 pA current steps. Higher AP frequency (lower left) of excitatory neurons in ChABC-treated slices (n = 22(8)) than in nontreated controls (n = 36(10)). Unaltered Cm of excitatory neurons in (lower right) ChABC-treated slices (66.84 ± 10.51, n = 8 (6)) than in control (73.93 ± 6.95, n = 27(8)). c Properties of FSNs during real-time PNN degradation in slices by ChABC (T = 0, before ChABC; T = 50, 50 min after ChABC superfusion). Rin (T = 0, 175.05 ± 14.60; T = 50, 177.83 ± 14.93; n = 9(7)) remained unaltered; however, Cm (T = 0, 43.53 ± 2.70; T = 50, 55.76 ± 3.43; n = 9(6)) and max AP frequency (T = 0, 406.62 ± 14.39; T = 50, 322.5 ± 30.27, n = 8(6)) changed significantly. d Representative traces of FSN’s Vm decay and e AP frequency before (black) and after (red) ChABC treatment. τ = membrane time constant. f Electrophysiological properties of FSNs during ACSF superfusion did not change. Rin (T = 0, 156.07 ± 8.96; T = 50, 158.98 ± 9.94; n = 9(6)), Cm (T = 0, 38.74 ± 3.51; T = 50, 39.33 ± 3.75; n = 9(6)), and AP frequency (T = 0, 368 ± 20.90; T = 50, 364.5 ± 18.83; n = 8(6)). g Representative traces of FSN’s Vm decay and h AP frequency before (black) and after (red) 50 min of ACSF treatment. τ = membrane time constant. n = cells(mice) in all. The units for membrane potential (Vm), membrane capacitance (Cm), and input resistance (Rin) are mV, pF, and MΩ, respectively. ****P < 0.0001, ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05, two-way ANOVA, Sidak’s post-hoc test in bottom left (a and b); unpaired t test in bottom right (a and b); and paired t test in (c) and (f)
Fig. 8 PNNs modulate the firing rate of FSNs by reducing the membrane capacitance. a Representative Vm traces of FSNs in control (upper left) and ChABC-treated slices (upper right) on −100pA and 140pA current injections. Reduced AP frequency of FSNs in (lower left) ChABC-treated slices (n = 8(6)) than in control (n = 10(7)). Higher Cm (lower right) of FSNs in ChABC-treated slices (39.87 ± 3.56, n = 12(6)) than in control (30.11 ± 1.99, n = 15(8)). b Representative Vm traces of excitatory neurons in control (upper left) and ChABC-treated slices (upper right) on −100pA and 60 pA current steps. Higher AP frequency (lower left) of excitatory neurons in ChABC-treated slices (n = 22(8)) than in nontreated controls (n = 36(10)). Unaltered Cm of excitatory neurons in (lower right) ChABC-treated slices (66.84 ± 10.51, n = 8 (6)) than in control (73.93 ± 6.95, n = 27(8)). c Properties of FSNs during real-time PNN degradation in slices by ChABC (T = 0, before ChABC; T = 50, 50 min after ChABC superfusion). Rin (T = 0, 175.05 ± 14.60; T = 50, 177.83 ± 14.93; n = 9(7)) remained unaltered; however, Cm (T = 0, 43.53 ± 2.70; T = 50, 55.76 ± 3.43; n = 9(6)) and max AP frequency (T = 0, 406.62 ± 14.39; T = 50, 322.5 ± 30.27, n = 8(6)) changed significantly. d Representative traces of FSN’s Vm decay and e AP frequency before (black) and after (red) ChABC treatment. τ = membrane time constant. f Electrophysiological properties of FSNs during ACSF superfusion did not change. Rin (T = 0, 156.07 ± 8.96; T = 50, 158.98 ± 9.94; n = 9(6)), Cm (T = 0, 38.74 ± 3.51; T = 50, 39.33 ± 3.75; n = 9(6)), and AP frequency (T = 0, 368 ± 20.90; T = 50, 364.5 ± 18.83; n = 8(6)). g Representative traces of FSN’s Vm decay and h AP frequency before (black) and after (red) 50 min of ACSF treatment. τ = membrane time constant. n = cells(mice) in all. The units for membrane potential (Vm), membrane capacitance (Cm), and input resistance (Rin) are mV, pF, and MΩ, respectively. ****P < 0.0001, ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05, two-way ANOVA, Sidak’s post-hoc test in bottom left (a and b); unpaired t test in bottom right (a and b); and paired t test in (c) and (f)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 9 PNN degradation facilitates hyperactivity in excitatory neurons. a Representative current-clamp (I = 0) recording traces from an excitatory neuron showing interictal and ictal-like discharges induced by Mg2+ removal from ACSF. Expanded trace shows ictal-like activity. b−e Representative voltage-clamp recordings of excitatory neurons from a control (b) and ChABC-treated slice (e) before and after removing Mg2+ from ACSF. The expanded traces in (c) and (d) correspsond to before and during interictal-like discharges, respectively, in the recording shown in (b). f−g Latency to Mg2+-free-induced (f) interictal activity (control, 17.52 ± 0.81 min, n = 12(6); ChABC-treated, 15.06 ± 1.27 min, n = 8(5); unpaired t test) and (g) ictal-like activity (control, 73.67 ± 6.69 min, n = 12(6); ChABC-treated, 38.83 ± 3.40 min, n = 8(5); ***P < 0.001, Welch's t test). n = cells(mice) in (f) and (g)
Fig. 9 PNN degradation facilitates hyperactivity in excitatory neurons. a Representative current-clamp (I = 0) recording traces from an excitatory neuron showing interictal and ictal-like discharges induced by Mg2+ removal from ACSF. Expanded trace shows ictal-like activity. b−e Representative voltage-clamp recordings of excitatory neurons from a control (b) and ChABC-treated slice (e) before and after removing Mg2+ from ACSF. The expanded traces in (c) and (d) correspsond to before and during interictal-like discharges, respectively, in the recording shown in (b). f−g Latency to Mg2+-free-induced (f) interictal activity (control, 17.52 ± 0.81 min, n = 12(6); ChABC-treated, 15.06 ± 1.27 min, n = 8(5); unpaired t test) and (g) ictal-like activity (control, 73.67 ± 6.69 min, n = 12(6); ChABC-treated, 38.83 ± 3.40 min, n = 8(5); ***P < 0.001, Welch's t test). n = cells(mice) in (f) and (g)CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

72 Own result · 35 Own interpretation · 25 Not checked yet · 11 Own method · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 47 references — free account

Show all 74 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 57
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 25
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
74 of 74
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The elevation in glioma-released glutamate persists in GM6001-treated animals and continues to drive heightened excitability of excitatory neurons.

    “Note, however, that under these conditions the elevation in glioma-released glutamate remains a driver of heightened excitability in GM6001-treated animals.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The first-order Hodgkin−Huxley approximation and Neuronify model with identical electrical properties adequately represent the biophysical behavior of FSNs.

    “we employed a computer simulation to generate a first-order approximation to the Hodgkin−Huxley (HH) differential equation model (Supplementary Fig. 9a, b).”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 64 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Abbott, L. & Kepler, T. B. Model neurons: from Hodgkin−Huxley to Hopfield. In Statistical Mechanics of Neural Networks (ed. Garrido, I.) (Springer, Berlin, 1990).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 211

Metadata

Authors
Tewari, B. P., Chaunsali, L., Campbell, S. L., Patel, D. C., Goode, A. E., & Sontheimer, H.
Affiliations
Carilion Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Sontheimer, Harald
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2018-11-09
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
4724-4724
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2900125538
Cited by
208
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 13
FWCI
11.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS052634, R01NS036692, R01NS082851)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Epilepsy research and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
perineuronal nets, fast-spiking interneurons, membrane capacitance, tumor-associated epilepsy, GABAergic inhibition, proteolytic enzymes, tumor microenvironment, excitatory-inhibitory imbalance, epilepsy treatment
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Brain Neoplasms, Cell Membrane, Disease Models, Animal, Epilepsy, Extracellular Matrix, Female, Glioma, Gliosis, Interneurons, Male, Mice, Nude, Peptide Hydrolases, Mice, SCID, Electric Capacitance, Biophysical Phenomena

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review