Skip to main content
Log in

Neuronal Electrical Rhythms Described by Composite Mapped Clock Oscillators

  • Nanobioengineering
  • Published:
Annals of Biomedical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

The Mapped Clock Oscillator (MCO) model is a representation of omnipresent transmembrane voltage oscillations in excitable cells. We present a generalized version of the MCO that can model neuronal electrical oscillations, both labile and omnipresent, entirely within the framework of a system of ordinary differential equations. The previously described MCO was a second-order system, whereas the model presented here, which we call the composite MCO (cMCO) is a fourth-order system. Furthermore, we show how this cMCO can also be adapted to describe a pair of cells that forms a functional unit, as illustrated here by a model of the CA3 pyramidal cell and its basket cell interneuron feedback loop. The model was able to reproduce the high frequencies (super gamma) and possibly chaotic dynamics observed in the biological system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 4.
FIGURE 5.
FIGURE 6.
FIGURE 7.
FIGURE 8.
FIGURE 9.
FIGURE 10.
FIGURE 11.
FIGURE 12.
FIGURE 13.
FIGURE 14.
FIGURE 15.
FIGURE 16.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Bardakjian, B. L., R. Aschenbrenner-Scheibe, J. L. Perez-Velazquez, and P. L. Carlen. Transmembrane voltage oscillations in CA3 neurons. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on IEEE/EMBS, Montreal, Quebec, September 20–23, 1995, pp. 1503–1504.

  2. Bardakjian, B. L., and N. E. Diamant. A Mapped Clock Oscillator model for transmembrane electrical activity in excitable cells. J. Theor. Biol. 166:225–235, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bardakjian, B. L., T. Y. El-Sharkawy, and N. E. Diamant. On a population of labile synthesized relaxation oscillators. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. BME-30:696–701, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bardakjian, B. L., T. Y. El-Sharkawy, and N. E. Diamant. Interaction of coupled nonlinear oscillators having different intrinsic resting levels. J. Theor. Biol. 106:9–23, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bardakjian, B. L., and S. K. Sarna. A computer model of human colonic electrical control activity (ECA). IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 27:193–202, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bardakjian, B. L., S. K. Sarna, and N. E. Diamant. Compositesynthesized relaxation oscillators: Application to modeling of colonic electrical control and response activity. J. Gastrointest. Motil. 2:109–116, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Basar, E. EEG-Brain Dynamics: Relation Between EEG and Brain Evoked Potentials. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1980.

  8. Berridge, M. J., and P. E. Rapp. A comparative survey of the function, mechanism and control of cellular oscillators. J. Exp. Biol. 81:217–279, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chay, T. R. Bursting excitable cell models by a slow calcium current. J. Theor. Biol. 142:305–315, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cole, K. S., and J. W. Moore. Potassium ion current in the squid giant axon: Dynamic characteristic. Biophys. J. 1:1–14, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ermentrout, G. B., and N. Kopell. Frequency plateaus in a chain of weakly coupled oscillators: I. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 15:215–237, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ermentrout, G. B., and N. Kopell. Multiple pulse interactions and averaging in systems of coupled neural oscillators. J. Math. Biol. 29:195–217, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ermentrout, G. B., and N. Kopell. Fine structure of neural spiking and synchronization in the presence of conduction delays. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95:1259–1264, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ermentrout, B., M. Pascal, and B. Gutkin. The effects of spike frequency adaptation and negative feedback on the synchronization of neural oscillators. Neural Comput. 13:1285–1310, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fitzhugh, R. Impulses and physiological states in theoretical models of nerve membranes. Biophys. J. 1:445–466, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Glass, L., and M. C. Mackey. From Clocks to Chaos. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.

  17. Grasman, J. The mathematical modeling of entrained biological oscillators. Bull. Math. Biol. 46:407–422, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gutfreund, Y., Y. Yarom, and I. Segev. Subthreshold oscillations and resonant frequency in guinea-pig cortical neurons: Physiology and modelling. J. Physiol. 483.3:621–640, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jefferys, J. G. R., R. D. Traub, and M. A. Whittington. Neuronal networks for induced ‘40 Hz’ rhythms. Trends Neurosci. 19:202–208, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kopell, N., and G. B. Ermentrout. Subcellular oscillations and bursting. Math. Biosci. 78:265–291, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lee, Y. S., T. R. Chay, and T. Ree. On the mechanism of spiking and bursting in excitable cells. Biophys. Chem. 18:25–34, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Leung, L. S., and C. Y. Yim. Intrinsic membrane potential oscillations in hippocampal neurons et al. 553:261–274, 1991.

  23. Linkens, D. A., and S. Datardina. Frequency entrainment of coupled Hodgkin–Huxley type oscillators for modeling gastrointestinal electrical activity. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. BME-24:362–365, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pavlidis, T. Biological Oscillators: Their Mathematical Analysis. New York: Academic Press, 1973.

  25. Plant, R. E., and M. Kim. Mathematical description of a bursting pacemaker neuron by a modification of the Hodgkin–Huxley equations. Biophys. J. 16:227–244, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rinzel, J. A formal classification of bursting mechanisms in excitable cells. In: Mathematical Topics in Population Biology, Morphogenesis, and Neurosciences, Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, vol. 71, edited by E. Teramoto and M. Yamaguti. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1987, pp. 267–281.

  27. Sherman, A., and J. Rinzel. Model for synchronization of pancreatic \({\beta}\)-cells by gap junction coupling. Biophys. J. 59:547–559, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Stein, R. B. Some models of neuronal variability. Biophys. J. 7:37–68, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Traub, R. D., J. G. R. Jefferys, and M. A. Whittington. Simulation of gamma rhythms in networks of interneurons and pyramidal cells. J. Comput. Neurosci. 4:141–150, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Traub, R. D., J. G. R. Jefferys, and M. A. Whittington. Fast Oscillations in Cortical Circuits. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.

  31. Van der Pol, B., and J. van der Mark. The heart considered as a relaxation oscillator and an electrical model of the heart. Philos. Mag. 6:763–775, 1928.

    Google Scholar 

  32. White, J. A., C. C. Chow, J. Ritt, C. Soto-Trevino, and N. Kopell. Synchronization and oscillatory dynamics in heterogeneous, mutually inhibited neurons. J. Comput. Neurosci. 5:5–16, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Winfree, A. T. Electrical instability in cardiac muscle: Phase singularities and rotors. J. Theor. Biol. 138:353–405, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Winfree, A. T. The Geometry of Biological Time, 2nd ed. New York: Springer Verlag, 2001.

  35. Wolf, A., J. B. Swift, H. L. Swinney, and J. A. Vastano. Determining Lyapunov exponents from a time series. Physica D 16:285–317, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Zariffa, J., M. Ebden, and B. L. Bardakjian. A synaptic input portal for a mapped clock oscillator model of neuronal electrical rhythmic activity. J. Neural. Eng. 1:158–164, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work has been supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC) and the “Fonds Québecois de Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Berj L. Bardakjian.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

This appendix describes the second-order MCO. The variables described here have the same meaning in the fourth-order cMCOs presented in this paper. Refer to Zariffa et al. 36 for more detailed explanations.

The MCO model was developed with the understanding that excitable cells can undergo rhythmic transmembrane depolarizations. These nonlinear oscillators have an “intrinsic frequency” but are influenced by their environment, including other nearby oscillators. Each oscillator is driven by a “clock,” consisting of two differential equations:

$$\dot{\alpha} = \omega \alpha (1-\alpha^{2})$$
(A.1)
$$\dot{\phi} = \omega$$
(A.2)

where \({\alpha}\) is the amplitude, \({\phi}\) is the phase and \({\omega}\) is the intrinsic frequency of the clock. Adding the effective stimuli (\({S_{\alpha}}\), \({S_{\phi}}\), \({S_{\gamma1}}\), and \({S_{\gamma2}}\)) applied to the clock's three input portals (called \({P_{\alpha}}\), \({P_{\phi}}\), and \({P_{\gamma}}\)) and including refractoriness (\({R(.)}\)), we obtain:

$$\dot{\alpha} = \omega \alpha (1 + S_{\alpha} -\alpha^{2}) + S_{\gamma 1} \sin(\phi) + S_{\gamma 2} \cos(\phi)$$
(A.3)
$$\dot{\phi} = \omega (1 + R(\phi) S_{\phi}) + \frac{1}{\alpha} (S_{\gamma 1} \cos(\phi) - S_{\gamma 2} \sin(\phi))$$
(A.4)

where \({\dot\phi}\) and \({\alpha}\) are forced to be nonnegative (i.e. negative values are set to zero). This clock is then mapped by a static nonlinearity (e.g. representing transmembrane ionic transport mechanisms) onto an observable output, \(y\), which is also affected by the effective stimulus (\({S_{\rho}}\)) applied to the mapper through its synaptic portal (\({P_{\rho}}\)):

$$y = a_{0} (1+S_{\rho}) + \alpha \sum_{k=1}^{N}[a_{k} T_{k}(\cos(\phi)) + b_{k} \sin(\phi) U_{k-1}\\ (\cos(\phi))]$$
(A.5)

where \(y\) represents the transmembrane voltage, \({a_{0}}\) is the intrinsic average level, \({a_{k}}\), \({b_{k}}\) are the Fourier coefficients of the waveform of the intrinsic oscillation, \({T_{k}}\) and \({U_{k}}\) are the \(k\)th Tchebychev polynomials of the first and second type, respectively, \(k\) is the harmonic index, \({S_{\alpha}}\), \({S_{\phi}}\), \({S_{\gamma1}}\), \({S_{\gamma2}}\), and \({S_{\rho}}\) represent the inputs to the four different portals of the oscillator (if the oscillator is uncoupled, then these are all zero), \(R({\phi})\) is the refractoriness function, which ensures that the neuron stops being sensitive to frequency inputs while it is bursting. It is implemented as a highpass Butterworth function shown in Eq. (A.6).

$$R(\phi) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + (\frac{2 \pi r}{\phi})^{2 N}}}$$
(A.6)

The Tchebychev polynomials are used in the static nonlinearity of the mapper because in the absence of any stimuli (\({S_{\alpha}} = {S_{\phi}} = {S_{\gamma1}} = {S_{\gamma2}} = {S_{\rho}} = 0\)) the static nonlinearity reduces to a standard Fourier series.2 The parameters of the static nonlinearity are the Fourier coefficients. Hence, the measured transmembrane voltage waveform of an uncoupled biological oscillator can be analyzed in a Fourier series to determine the model parameters of the mapper.

In Eqs. (A.3)–(A.5), four stimulus portals take their effect in different places. Refer to the main text and to Zariffa et al. 36 for a description of their meaning. In general, for the \(n\)th oscillator, having the set \({I_{nm}}\) of neighboring oscillators, the four portals are shown in Eqs. (A.7)–(A.11).

  • Portal \({P_{\phi}}\):

    $$S_{\phi} = \frac{\sum_{m \epsilon I_{nm}}^{}(c_{\phi n m} y_{m}) - \beta_{\phi} y_{n} + a_{0} S_{\rho}}{\sigma_{n}}$$
    (A.7)
  • Portal \({P_{\alpha}}\):

    $$S_{\alpha} = \frac{\sum_{m \epsilon I_{nm}}^{}(c_{\alpha n m} y_{m}) - \beta_{\alpha} y_{n}}{\sigma_{n}}$$
    (A.8)
  • Portal \({P_{\gamma}}\):

    $$S_{\gamma 1} = \frac{\sum_{m \epsilon I_{nm}}^{}(c_{\gamma n m} \alpha_{m} \sin(\phi_{m}))}{\delta}$$
    (A.9)
    $$S_{\gamma 2} = \frac{\sum_{m \epsilon I_{nm}}^{}(c_{\gamma n m} \alpha_{m} \cos(\phi_{m}))}{\delta}$$
    (A.10)
  • Portal \({P_{\rho}}\):

    $$S_{\rho} = g\left(\frac{\sum_{m \epsilon I_{nm}}^{}c_{\rho n m} \dot\phi_{m} - \beta_{\rho} \dot\phi_{n}}{{\rm sgn}(a_{0})\omega_{n}}\right)$$
    (A.11)

The function \({g()}\) has the general shape shown in Fig. 17.

FIGURE 17.
figure 17

Synaptic transfer function. This function is used to ensure that the synaptic stimulation of the oscillator saturates, rather than become arbitrarily large as inputs increase.

The variables have the following meanings:

  • \({\sigma_{n}}\) = \({(\sum_{k=1}^{N}(a_{k}^{2}+b_{k}^{2}))^{1/2}}\) is a normalization factor for the mapper, representing the amplitude of the intrinsic waveform.

  • \({\delta}\) is a static clock normalization factor. Unless otherwise specified it is set to 0.1.

  • \({\omega_{n}}\) is the \(n\)th oscillator's intrinsic frequency.

  • \({\beta_{\phi}}\), \({\beta_{\alpha}}\), and \({\beta_{\rho}}\) are feedback factors.

  • \({c_{\alpha}}\), \({c_{\phi}}\), \({c_{\gamma}}\), and \({c_{\rho}}\) represent the coupling factors between the oscillators. They are real numbers between 0 and 1, where 1 signifies that the corresponding portal is fully open, and 0 signifies that it is closed. The sign of \({c_{\rho}}\) is used to distinguish between excitatory and inhibitory synapses.

  • \({y_{m}}\) is the transmembrane voltage of the driving oscillator.

  • \({\eta}\) is a scaling factor for how much the resting level is allowed to vary.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zariffa, J., Bardakjian, B.L. Neuronal Electrical Rhythms Described by Composite Mapped Clock Oscillators. Ann Biomed Eng 34, 128–141 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-005-9010-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-005-9010-7

Keywords

Navigation