Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25626996›Full record

ArticleNeural development2015

Quantitative differences in developmental profiles of spontaneous activity in cortical and hippocampal cultures.

Paul Charlesworth, Ellese Cotterill, Andrew Morton, Seth G N Grant, Stephen J Eglen

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Neural development, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Neurogranin Promotes Neuronal Maturation and Network Activity Through CaInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Paul CharlesworthGenes to Cognition Programme, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Genome Campus, CB10 1SA, Hinxton, UK. pc451@cam.ac.uk.
Ellese CotterillCambridge Computational Biology Institute, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, UK. ec526@cam.ac.uk.
Andrew MortonGenes to Cognition Programme, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Genome Campus, CB10 1SA, Hinxton, UK. s0094403@sms.ed.ac.uk.
Seth G N GrantCentre 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.
Stephen J EglenCambridge Computational Biology Institute, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, UK. sje30@cam.ac.uk.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/H008608/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeural 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.

resultsWe 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.

conclusionsAlthough 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.

Indexed as

Action PotentialsAnimalsCell CommunicationCells, CulturedCerebral CortexHippocampusMiceMicroelectrodesNeuronsOrgan SpecificityPrincipal Component AnalysisTheta Rhythm

Identifiers

PMID25626996
PMCPMC4320829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.