Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro

eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleNew Research, Disorders of the Nervous System

Background EEG Connectivity Captures the Time-Course of Epileptogenesis in a Mouse Model of Epilepsy

Piotr Słowiński, Laurent Sheybani, Christoph M. Michel, Mark P. Richardson, Charles Quairiaux, John R. Terry and Marc Goodfellow
eNeuro 25 July 2019, 6 (4) ENEURO.0059-19.2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0059-19.2019
Piotr Słowiński
1College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, United Kingdom
2Translational Research Exchange @ Exeter (TREE), University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QD, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Piotr Słowiński
Laurent Sheybani
3Functional Brain Mapping Lab, Department of Fundamental Neuroscience, Campus Biotech, University of Geneva, Geneva, 1202, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christoph M. Michel
3Functional Brain Mapping Lab, Department of Fundamental Neuroscience, Campus Biotech, University of Geneva, Geneva, 1202, Switzerland
4Centre for Biomedical Imaging (CIBM), Lausanne and Geneva, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark P. Richardson
5Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Charles Quairiaux
3Functional Brain Mapping Lab, Department of Fundamental Neuroscience, Campus Biotech, University of Geneva, Geneva, 1202, Switzerland
6Department of Fundamental Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, 1206, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Charles Quairiaux
John R. Terry
1College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, United Kingdom
7Centre for Biomedical Modelling and Analysis, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QD, United Kingdom
8EPSRC Centre for Predictive Modelling in Healthcare, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QD, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marc Goodfellow
1College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QF, United Kingdom
7Centre for Biomedical Modelling and Analysis, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QD, United Kingdom
8EPSRC Centre for Predictive Modelling in Healthcare, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QD, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Visual Abstract

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Abstract

Large-scale brain networks are increasingly recognized as important for the generation of seizures in epilepsy. However, how a network evolves from a healthy state through the process of epileptogenesis remains unclear. To address this question, here, we study longitudinal epicranial background EEG recordings (30 electrodes, EEG free from epileptiform activity) of a mouse model of mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. We analyze functional connectivity networks and observe that over the time course of epileptogenesis the networks become increasingly asymmetric. Furthermore, computational modelling reveals that a set of nodes, located outside of the region of initial insult, emerges as particularly important for the network dynamics. These findings are consistent with experimental observations, thus demonstrating that ictogenic mechanisms can be revealed on the EEG, that computational models can be used to monitor unfolding epileptogenesis and that both the primary focus and epileptic network play a role in epileptogenesis.

  • epilepsy
  • background EEG
  • model
  • epileptogenesis
  • functional networks

Significance Statement

We provide the first description of how functional connectivity and network dynamics inferred from background EEG evolve during epileptogenesis. We focus on background EEG because it allows for direct comparison of functional networks before and after experimental intervention. We show that network dynamics inferred by means of computational modeling are different at early and later stages of epileptogenesis. Our findings provide further support for clinical potential of background EEG.

Introduction

Epilepsy is the most common chronic brain disorder affecting ∼1 in 100 people worldwide and accounting for 0.6% of the global burden of disease (World Health Organization, 2019). Epilepsy is characterized by recurrent seizures. Seizure recurrence is a particularly important feature because up to 10% of people worldwide who do not have epilepsy have a single seizure during their lifetime (World Health Organization, 2019). In other words, although every brain is able to generate seizures, not every brain is prone to generating recurring seizures.

Occurrences of epileptiform activity are irregular and unpredictable, but in contrast background brain activity (i.e., periods of activity that are free from obvious epileptiform abnormalities or discharges) is readily observable. There is therefore a significant research effort focused on exploiting the background activity in research and clinical practice. Recent developments in this area, based on the modern, network perspective of epilepsy, have focused on functional network analyses of background EEG and MEG. These studies have revealed altered networks in the background EEG of people with epilepsy compared with healthy controls (Chowdhury et al., 2014; Schmidt et al., 2014, 2016; Coito et al., 2015; Niso et al., 2015; Woldman and Terry, 2015; Soriano et al., 2017) and have uncovered specific features that can help point to the location of an “epileptogenic zone” within networks (van Dellen et al., 2014; Englot et al., 2015; Nissen et al., 2017). The studies are predominantly concerned with uncovering differences between the EEG of people with epilepsy and healthy controls, and address the question of how ictogenic mechanisms manifest in the EEG. The latter are mechanisms that lead the brain of someone with epilepsy to sporadically transition into seizures from the non-seizure state.

However, a key question in epilepsy research that remains is how does the brain becomes capable of generating recurrent seizures in the first place? This is a question of epileptogenic mechanisms, i.e., what changes does the brain undergo over longer periods of time to become ictogenic (Dichter, 2009; Lopes Da Silva et al., 2012; Goldberg and Coulter, 2013; Löscher et al., 2015). Various animal models can be used to explore these mechanisms. Gill et al. (2017), for example, studied a rat model of intraperitoneally administered kainic acid and catalogued the development of alterations to networks derived from fMRI (Gill et al., 2017). However, our understanding of the ways that large-scale brain dynamics evolve following local insult remains poor.

To address this, we study background functional EEG networks in a well-established mouse model of temporal lobe epilepsy (Bouilleret et al., 1999; Riban et al., 2002; Arabadzisz et al., 2005; Gröticke et al., 2008; Häussler et al., 2012; Lévesque and Avoli, 2013). In this model, unilateral injection of kainic acid in the dorsal hippocampus induces a status epilepticus followed by gradual neurodegeneration at the injected hippocampus (Riban et al., 2002; Arabadzisz et al., 2005). Concomitantly, spontaneous epileptiform events can be measured on the EEG at both hippocampi and after 2–8 weeks, spontaneous and recurrent paroxysmal discharges that are reminiscent of focal and secondarily generalized seizures occur (Riban et al., 2002; Arabadzisz et al., 2005; Chauvière et al., 2012; Huneau et al., 2013; Salami et al., 2014; Sheybani et al., 2018).

In the current study, we characterize functional connectivity networks before and during epileptogenesis by analyzing EEG recorded before kainic acid injection as well as at 7 and 28 days after the injection. Our analysis reveals that the progression of epileptogenesis is reflected in changes to background functional connectivity networks, with the focal injection leading to a disruption of network symmetry. We use a mathematical model to understand how these observed changes affect the ways that different nodes contribute to generation of epileptiform activity. Using only the background activity as input to the model, it reveals that nodes outside of the injected hippocampus become more important throughout epileptogenesis. This is in line with previous experiments that demonstrated the emergence of epileptiform activity self-sustained by brain structures outside of the epileptic focus (the injected hippocampus; Sheybani et al., 2018). These findings present a step toward a network level understanding of epileptogenesis that could be developed to aid diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy.

Materials and Methods

Animals and recordings

We used longitudinal recordings from the experiments described by Sheybani et al. (2018). We analyzed longitudinal recordings from 12 animals (adult male C57BL/6J mice, Charles River Laboratories) for which data were recorded before unilateral kainic acid injection into the left hippocampus (Day 0) as well as at 7 and 28 d after injection. Of the 12 longitudinal datasets 1 was excluded from all analysis because of poor quality of the data. Of the 11 remaining datasets 4 were excluded from analysis at Day 7 because of high number of artefacts and noise in the background EEG. Therefore, we used a total of 11 datasets with recordings at Day 0 and Day 28, with 7 of the 11 datasets also including recordings at Day 7. Additionally, we analyzed data recorded from four sham control animals (adult male C57BL/6J mice, Charles River Laboratories) that were unilaterally saline injected into the left hippocampus and had epicranial EEG recorded 28 days after the injection.

The epicranial EEG was recorded at 4 kHz sampling frequency using Digital Lynx SX (NeuraLynx). All recordings were re-referenced to the electrode average. We removed power line interference using a 50 Hz (and 100 and 150 Hz harmonics) notch filter and further bandpass filtered the data between 1 and 150 Hz using a zero-phase forward and reverse Butterworth filter of order 2.

From each EEG recording, which lasted around 30 min, multiple 1 s background data segments were selected from periods without epileptiform activity (median number of segments 55, min 17, max 83); for data collected on Days 7 and 28 the segments were at least 1 s removed from the onset of a generalized spike (GS; inter-ictal epileptic discharges described in Sheybani et al., 2018).

All experiments described by Sheybani et al. (2018) were conducted in accordance with Swiss Laws on animal experimentation.

Network reconstruction

Following Rummel et al. (2015), Goodfellow et al. (2016), and Schmidt et al. (2016), we treated each EEG channel as recording from a single node of a network. To estimate weights of directed connections between the nodes we combined methods presented by Rummel et al. (2015) and Schmidt et al. (2016). Namely, to measure statistical interdependency between the EEG channels we employed the cross-correlation function:Embedded Image (1)

In practice, we used the MATLAB function: xcorr with option coeff, which normalizes the cross-correlation function in such a way that the autocorrelations at 0 lag are equal to 1.

To estimate the strength of the relationship between channels we used three different approaches based on the extremum of the cross-correlogram rcoeff(xi, xj)(τ). In the first method, we followed Schmidt et al. (2016), and we used the maximum absolute value of the cross-correlogram, maxτ |rcoeff(xi, xj)(τ)|. In the second method, we followed suggestion from Sinha et al. (2017) and used only the values of maxτ |rcoeff(xi, xj)(τ)| for which rcoeff(xi, xj)(τ)>0. We refer to the matrices derived with these two methods as CABS and CMAX, respectively. Finally, to understand the difference between the CABS and CMAX we also analyzed networks estimated using the values of maxτ |rcoeff(xi, xj)(τ)| where rcoeff(xi, xj)(τ)<0. We refer to the matrices from the third method as CMIN.

The cross-correlogram rcoeff(xi, xj)(τ) provides a natural way to infer directionality of the estimated connections. The direction of the connections is given by the sign of the lag between the two channels; with τ < 0 meaning that a channel i is leading (transmitting to) channel j. In the paper we adopted notation in which a connection from channel i to j is noted as element cij of the connectivity matrix. In this convention, extrema of the cross-correlation function at τ < 0 make up the elements of the matrix that are above the diagonal j > i and ones at τ > 0 are below the diagonal i > j. The diagonal is equal to 0 (no self-loops).

We disregarded any lags >250 ms (1000 points) and lags <2 ms (8 time samples). We removed the shortest lags to address the problem of volume conduction, i.e. spurious correlations between the time series because of common sources of activity. Such activity is typically detected at very small values of lag between the time series. We chose 8 samples because they correspond to a single sample at sampling frequency 512 Hz, which is a typical sampling frequency used in clinical acquisition of intracranial EEG.

To increase the accuracy of estimation of the connections, we divided each 1 s data segment into 21 windows (500 ms) with a 25 ms overlap, and we computed connectivity matrices for each window.

We further checked that values of the coefficients were not solely because of the presence of dominant intrinsic channel frequencies. For each 1 s data segment we generated 100 sets of univariate iterative amplitude adjusted Fourier transform surrogates (Schreiber and Schmitz, 1996), each containing 30 channels, generated using 10 iterations. A Wilcoxon rank sum test (with Bonferroni correction for 870 comparisons) was used to test, element-wise, whether coefficients in the 21 windows had a different median than the 2100 surrogate windows. For each 1 s data segment the computed values of cross-correlation coefficients were averaged and normalized in the same way as by Rummel et al. (2015):Embedded Image (2)

Here, ⟨cij,data⟩ is the median value of the coefficients from the data, ⟨cij,surr⟩ is the median value of the coefficients from the surrogate data, sij = 1 if the familywise error rate (FWER) < 0.05 and 0 otherwise. Finally, we averaged the network topologies over all data segments in a recording and normalized the coefficients with the sum of all of the elements of the connectivity matrix. By averaging over multiple segments we aimed to estimate functional connectivity that accounts for complex bidirectional interactions between the brain regions generating the recorded activity.

To ensure that the variability in the number of data segments did not affect the presented results, we excluded from analysis five datasets that either had a very low number of data segments or resulted in a low number of connections (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Criteria for excluding recordings from analysis. Number of segments selected in a recording versus number of non-zero elements in the average adjacency matrix estimated from all the segments in the recording. Each dot represents a single recording. Recordings represented by the encircled dots were excluded from the analysis. A, Matrices estimated using CABS; B, matrices estimated using CMAX; C, matrices estimated using CMIN. Each method produced average adjacency matrices with similar number of non-zero elements.

Model

To model the network dynamics we followed the procedure presented by Lopes et al. (2017, 2018), i.e., we analyzed to what extent removal of a single node (virtual resection; Goodfellow et al., 2016; Khambhati et al., 2016) affects activity of the network that on average spends half of the time in the active state. The simulations proceeded as follows:

(1) The dynamics of each node was modelled using the theta neuron model (Ermentrout and Kopell, 1986), which has been shown to well approximate the predictions of neural mass models close to a saddle-node on invariant circle bifurcation (Lopes et al., 2017):Embedded Image (3)

Here, I0 is the intrinsic model parameter, Inoise = 6 is noise intensity and Embedded Image is a random number from a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 1. We set I0 = −1.2 to ensure that in the absence of noise a stable steady state exists in the system. To couple the nodes, we used the functional connectivity matrix C; with elements cij. Coupled equations have the following form (Lopes et al., 2017):Embedded Image (4)

Here, ω is a global scaling factor of the weights cji of the incoming connections of the node i; N is the total number of nodes in the network. The θ*j is the steady state of node j. Parameters I0 = −1.2 and Inoise = 6 are the same at each node. For each simulation, we used a time step of 0.01, and the duration of the simulation was 4.0e6 time steps. For more details, see Lopes et al. (2017).

(2) We first estimated the value of ω>0 for which on average the whole network spends 50% of the time in the active state. ω50 was estimated in separate simulations (averaged over 10 runs with independent noise realizations). We used the same definition of the node’s active state as in (Lopes et al., 2017). To quantify activity of the whole network we use the brain network ictogenicity (BNI), which is the average time each node spends in the active state (Goodfellow et al., 2016):Embedded Image (5)

(3) We then removed a single node and ran simulations with exactly the same parameters; we normalized the sum in Equation 4 with N rather than N−1 to keep the connection weights exactly the same. We measured the change in the network dynamics by comparing the time spent by the network in the active state before and after removing the node. To this end, we used node ictogenicity (NI) defined by Goodfellow et al. (2016):Embedded Image (6)where BNIi,post is the BNI estimated after removing node i from the network. We repeated each simulation 10 times and took the mean value of the NI over the 10 runs with independent noise realizations.

Statistical methods

We used nonparametric, median based statistical methods (Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney Wilcoxon or Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests) throughout. To control for multiple comparison during network reconstruction we used the Bonferroni FWER with a significance level of 0.05 (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995). To control for multiple comparison in the network analysis we used the Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery ratio (FDR; Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995). Due to small sample sizes we used a significance level of 0.1 for the network analysis. We additionally quantified effect sizes using area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC), which is a nonparametric alternative of the common-language effect size (Hentschke and Stüttgen, 2011). We used this method because it has a simple interpretation:

• AUROC = 0.5 means that the scores in the two groups are identical;

• AUROC = 0 means that all scores in the tested group are smaller than the scores of the control group;

• AUROC = 1 means that all scores in the tested group are larger than the scores of the control group.

All presented significant results have AUROC < 0.2 or > 0.8 meaning that the overlap between the scores in the two groups is <20%. In other words, in 80% of the cases a random score from one group exceeds a random score from the other group (Hentschke and Stüttgen, 2011). For the nonparametric one-way ANOVA analysis (Kruskal–Wallis test) we computed post hoc AUROC effect sizes of differences between the groups.

To visualize relationships between individual functional connectivity matrices we first quantified pairwise similarity between them by computing the Frobenius distance (Golub and Loan, 1996) for all pairs of matrices:

Embedded Image (7)

where aij and bij are the elements of matrices A and B. Next, we used classical multidimensional scaling (MDS) to visualize relations captured by the similarity matrix (Borg and Groenen, 2005), using MATLAB (Release 2018b, MathWorks) function cmdscale.

Statistical table

Description of statistical tests and the significance levels for results in Figs 3 and 4 can be found in Table 1. Description of statistical tests and the significance levels for the other results are described in the text.

Code accessibility

MATLAB scripts for the network analysis are available on request from P.S. The model is subject to copyright owned by the University of Exeter (international patent application WO/2017029505).

Results

Our goal is to characterize the evolution of large-scale functional brain networks during epileptogenesis. Many measures exist to quantify functional connectivity (Wang et al., 2014), each with different underlying assumptions. We begin with no a priori knowledge regarding the way in which the evolving ictogenic mechanisms of the brain may be reflected in functional connectivity. We therefore do not restrict our analysis to a particular frequency band. Considering broadband signals, a natural way to quantify functional connectivity is to study the correlation between signals. To avoid problems associated with volume conduction, we use the cross-correlation function and exclude correlations with maximum at zero lag (Christodoulakis et al., 2015). Focusing on lagged correlations also gives a natural way to build directionality into the networks. Additionally, the resulting correlations can be positive or negative and there are therefore different ways to quantify strength of interactions in the derived functional network. First, one can quantify the strength of the connection using the maximum of the absolute value of the cross-correlogram (Schmidt et al., 2014). We refer to the networks estimated using this method as CABS. Second, one can neglect negative values (Sinha et al., 2017) and use only the values of CABS at which the cross-correlogram >0. We refer to networks estimated using this method as CMAX. To analyze the differences between CABS and C MAX one can also examine the networks derived from the values of CABS at which the cross-correlogram <0. We refer to these networks as CMIN. In other words, one can decompose the connectivity matrices CABS into component matrices CMAX and CMIN. See Materials and Methods for details of the reconstruction of the connectivity matrices. In the following sections, we examine functional connectivity through epileptogenesis using these three methods.

Epileptogenesis changes properties of background functional connectivity networks

Figure 2 demonstrates the evolution of functional connectivity across the first 4 weeks of epileptogenesis for the three types of networks introduced above. The functional connectivity is described by connectivity matrices: each entry in a connectivity matrix represents a statistical relationship (in this case the extremum of cross-correlogram that occurred for non-zero lag) between EEG signals at two different electrodes. Therefore, the connectivity matrix captures the correlation pattern of a multichannel EEG signal.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Analysis of background functional connectivity reveals changes over the time course of epileptogenesis. A, E, I, Individual connectivity matrices represented as dots in the first two principal dimensions of the multidimensional scaling of Frobenius distances between the individual connectivity matrices. Each dot represents a single matrix (green, Day 0; yellow, Day 7; red, Day 28; gray, Sham control; empty symbols: circle, diamond, and square represent the median of the connectivity matrices). The first three principal multidimensional scaling dimensions represent ∼70% of the relations encoded in the raw Frobenius distances (R2ABS=0.66, R2MAX=0.72, R2MIN=0.7; R is Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the Frobenius distances in the matrix space and the Euclidian distances in the reconstructed space); for clarity only the first two coordinates are plotted. B–D, F–H, J–L, Median functional connectivity matrices (indicated with empty symbols in A, E, I) resulting from the three different measures at different days with color-coded connection weights (Day 0 over 11 matrices, Day 7 over 6 matrices, Day 28 over 8 matrices; different numbers of matrices for individual days because of quality of recordings; see Materials and Methods).

We quantified the differences between the connectivity matrices of individual animals across three different time points (Days 0, 7 and 28) by calculating the Frobenius distance between them (see Materials and Methods; Borg and Groenen, 2005). Using these distances to visualize the similarity between the matrices reveals that control (Day 0 and Sham) networks are different to post-injection networks (Days 7 and 28), because they form a distinct cluster compared with matrices derived from recordings at Days 7 and 28 for each of the three measures (Fig. 2A,E,I). The clustering of points corresponding to matrices derived from recordings before and after injection visible in Figure 2A, E, and I, demonstrates that the kainic acid injection has a large and consistent effect on the correlation patterns of the epicranial EEG. The clusters, however, do not inform us about which components of the connectivity matrices have changed.

To study the data on the population level, we compute median correlation matrices for each time point (median over entries cij of the connectivity matrices). Figure 2 demonstrates that the median correlation matrices appear to progress from an initially symmetric arrangement at Day 0, to asymmetric networks post-injection (Days 7 and 28). It also shows that the CABS matrices are a composition of the CMAX and CMIN matrices and that the CMAX and CMIN matrices differ from each other. A characteristic feature of the CMAX networks is that the connections between contralateral regions appear to be among the strongest (Fig. 2F–H, top right and bottom left quadrants of the connectivity matrices). To quantify the redistribution of connections post-injection, we asked whether connections from each electrode to their contralateral equivalent (dark anti-diagonals of the quadrants) were among the strongest (i.e., in 5% of the strongest connections). For control networks, 38% of contralateral connections were among the strongest, whereas this percentage fell to 22% at Days 7 and 28. This means that post-injection, the EEG between hemispheres becomes less synchronized. We note that this trend was also observed if we considered raw as opposed to normalized connectivity matrices. Such a decrease in synchronization has previously been shown for the hippocampi (Arabadzisz et al., 2005), but not for other brain regions. In contrast, for the C MIN networks the strongest connections are ipsilateral, meaning that they represent connections within a hemisphere (Fig. 2J–L, top left and bottom right quadrants of the connectivity matrices).

To quantify the breakdown of synchronization, we calculated the degree imbalance (outdegree−indegree) of nodes in the functional connectivity networks of individual animals. Degree imbalance is an aggregated measure that quantifies the strength of connectivity for each node. Statistically, if outdegreeweighted>indegreeweighted the EEG signal recorded on a node temporally leads some of the other nodes and the node can be interpreted as a “source” of activity. If not, the node lags other nodes on average and it can be considered a “sink” (outdegreeweighted<indegreeweighted).

Interestingly, although network topologies are different for each of the three methods considered, the degree imbalance of the CABS, CMAX, and CMIN networks are similar. Figure 3A–C, E–G, and I–K shows the distribution of median degree imbalance across nodes. At Day 0, the configuration is symmetric, with sinks (Fig. 3A,E,J, blue nodes) predominantly in anterior and posterior regions. The maximum absolute values of the degree imbalance at Day 0 are approximately two times lower than at Days 7 and 28. At Day 7 the degree imbalance increases, with sources located at the left posterior and the right anterior regions. This pattern persists through to Day 28. Interestingly, many of the nodes that became sources are located above the left hippocampus, i.e., the site of initial intrahippocampal injection (Sheybani et al., 2018).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Illustration of changes of network properties over the time course of epileptogenesis. A–C, E–G, I–K, Median degree imbalance at individual nodes; blue indicates indegree>outdegree, red indicates indegree<outdegree. Value of the degree imbalance is color and size coded; larger and darker dots indicate higher degree imbalance. Dots filled in black have a median that is significantly different from the median on Day 0 (FDR < 0.1, two-sided Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney test with Benjamini–Hochberg correction for 30 nodes, effect size AUROC < 0.2 for blue nodes or >0.8 for red nodes; exact p values and effect sizes are presented in Extended data Figure 3-1). Gray arrows show topology of functional connectivity networks on different days illustrated using the strongest 5% of connections of the median connectivity matrices shown in Figure 2. D, H, L, Boxplots showing the degree of assymetry of the individual connectivity matrices.

Figure 3-1

Detailed illustration of changes in spatial distribution of degree imbalance (DI). A–C, Boxplots of distributions of DI values on each node on Day 0 (green), Day 7 (yellow) and Day 28 (Red). Shaded yellow bar indicates significant difference between Day 0 and Day 7. Shaded red bar indicates significant difference between Day 0 and Day 28. Text labels are as follows: first row FDR, second row (AUROC) for comparison of Day 0 and Day 28; third row FDR and fourth row (AUROC) for comparison of Day 0 and Day 7. Two-sided Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney test with Benjamini–Hochberg FDR correction for 30 nodes; effect size measured as AUROC. Download Figure 3-1, EPS file.

Figure 3A–C, E–G, and I–K shows the network topology of the top 5% of the strongest connections of the median connectivity matrices presented in Figure 2. These networks corroborate our observations based on the connectivity matrices: CABS matrices are a composition of the CMAX and CMIN matrices; the strongest connections in the CMAX matrices are contralateral and the strongest connections in CMIN matrices are ipsilateral. Taken collectively, Figures 2 and 3 describe changes in symmetry of the connectivity matrix and illustrate the large-scale breakdown of synchronization between right and left hemispheres that can be revealed from background EEG through epileptogenesis.

In addition to analyzing the degree imbalance of nodes, we analyzed global properties of the functional connectivity networks (Table 2; Fig. 3D,H,L). For all three types of network the same measures (Spectral norm, Variance of neighbor weighted outdegree and degree of asymmetry) were found to be significantly different on Day 0 and Days 7 and 28 (FDR < 0.05, Kruskal–Wallis test with Benjamini–Hochberg FDR correction for 19 tested network measures; chosen to capture in a nonredundant way the most important topological and spectral properties of the networks; for all analyzed measures, see Table 2). Values of these three measures increase over the time course of epileptogenesis; as an example, Figure 3D, H, and L, illustrate increasing median of the degree of asymmetry (Li and Zhang, 2012). These changes in local and global network properties further indicate that the underlying functional connectivity pattern of background activity becomes progressively more irregular and spatially heterogeneous post injection.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Statistical table

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Statistical analysis of network properties for the three kinds of connectivity matrices

Epileptogenesis changes network dynamics

An important question is how these alterations to the pattern of functional connectivity inferred from background EEG influence the ways that nodes contribute to the generation of epileptiform dynamics. To make this mechanistic link, we studied a mathematical model of spiking dynamics placed on the nodes of networks derived from each animal (see Material and Methods). To measure the contribution that each node in a network has to the generation of epileptiform rhythms we use NI introduced by Goodfellow et al. (2016; see Material and Methods). Figure 4 shows the distribution of NI at Days 0, 7, and 28 for the three types of networks. At Day 0, which we use as a reference point, we see that the NI is distributed symmetrically through the network, but with slightly elevated values in frontal regions. This means that, if the network was ictogenic, nodes in frontal regions would contribute more to the generation of epileptiform dynamics. At Day 7, the C ABS networks, shown in Figure 4B, displays significantly higher NI for multiple nodes in the left posterior and right anterior regions. This pattern persists at Day 28 (Fig. 4C), though nodes with elevated NI are now constrained to fewer regions. For the C MAX networks, illustrated in Figure 4E and F, significant increases in NI above baseline only occur at Day 28. Finally, for the C MIN networks, NI increases significantly at a single node, the location of which changes between Days 7 and 28. On both days the node with significantly elevated NI resides within a region that has been shown to be affected by TTX silencing, as identified by Sheybani et al. (2018) (their Figure 12B). In the experiments described by Sheybani et al. (2018) the kainate injected hippocampus (left) was silenced using an intrahippocampal TTX injection. After the TTX injection on Day 7, interictal GSs subsided. The same procedure on Day 28 did not affect the frequency of occurrence of GSs.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Illustration of changes in spatial distribution of node ictogenicity. A–I, Mean values of NI. Gray arrows are the strongest 5% of connections of the median networks. Value of the NI is color and size coded; larger and darker dots indicate higher NI. Dots filled in black have significantly higher median NI than the median on Day 0 (FDR < 0.1 one-sided Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney test with Benjamini–Hochberg FDR correction for 30 nodes, effect size AUROC > 0.8; exact p values and effect sizes are presented in Extended data Figure 4-1). Shaded regions in H and I show nodes affected by the TTX silencing; identified from Sheybani et al. (2018), their Figure 12B.

Figure 4-1

Detailed illustration of changes in spatial distribution of NI. A–C, Boxplots of distributions of NI values on each node on Day 0 (green), Day 7 (yellow), and Day 28 (red). Shaded yellow bar indicates significant difference between Day 0 and Day 7. Shaded red bar indicates significant difference between Day 0 and Day 28. Text labels are as follows: first row FDR, second row (AUROC) for comparison of Day 0 and Day 28; third row FDR and fourth row (AUROC) for comparison of Day 0 and Day 7. One-sided Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney test with Benjamini–Hochberg FDR correction for 30 nodes; effect size measured as AUROC. Download Figure 4-1, EPS file.

GSs are interictal epileptic discharges recently reported to be a predominant EEG marker of evolving abnormal dynamics during the latent as well as chronic phase of the disease in the kainic acid model (Sheybani et al., 2018). GSs travel across the whole epileptic network and have also been observed in humans (Aarts et al., 1984; Mohamed et al., 2001; Moseley et al., 2012). Sheybani et al. (2018) showed that the frequency of occurrence of GSs increases during epileptogenesis and that their occurrence is correlated with increased jerky movements. Furthermore, by Day 28 GSs no longer depend on the activity of the injected hippocampus, as captured by the TTX silencing experiment and evolution of the location of their onsets throughout Days 0–28 (Sheybani et al., 2018, their Fig. 6E). At Day 7, GSs originate predominantly from the left and right posterior regions, which is reflected in the observed increase in NI in left posterior regions and also node 9 in the C ABS networks. However, changes in NI are also observed in anterior regions in our model results. At Day 28, GSs originate predominantly from the right posterior regions, which is best captured by the evolution of NI in C MAX networks.

Discussion

Network analyses are increasingly being used to refine diagnosis, prognosis and treatment for epilepsy (Schmidt et al., 2014, 2016; Englot et al., 2015; Niso et al., 2015; Rummel et al., 2015; Tracy and Doucet, 2015; Goodfellow et al., 2016; Smith and Schevon, 2016; Lopes et al., 2017, 2018). In humans, functional connectivity derived from the background EEG are known to be altered in epilepsy. For example, Englot et al. (2015) showed that patients with focal epilepsies (temporal and neocortical) had decreased resting-state functional connectivity in multiple brain regions. In addition, people with idiopathic generalized epilepsies, as well as their first-degree relatives, have been shown to have elevated mean-degree and mean-degree variance of background functional EEG networks (Chowdhury et al., 2014).

Here we have provided the first characterization of how functional connectivity inferred from background EEG evolves during epileptogenesis. Throughout epileptogenesis, functional connectivity networks that are initially regular and symmetric become irregular and asymmetric. This corresponds to a loss of functional connectivity between hemispheres, both in the normalized connectivity presented in Figure 2 and if the raw connectivity is considered. These changes observed using EEG are in line with previous studies of fMRI functional connectivity derived in the tetanus toxin model (Otte et al., 2012), and could be underpinned by changes in white matter tracts (Otte et al., 2012) or changes to dynamics within localized brain regions. However, they differ from the analysis of the fMRI-derived functional connectivity in the systemic kainic acid model of temporal lobe epilepsy, which displayed stronger connections in comparison with control animals (Gill et al., 2017). Potential reasons for these discrepancies include the intraperitoneal administration of kainic acid used by Gill et al. (2017) causing more widespread changes in the brain tissue than intrahippocampal administration. Furthermore, functional networks reported by Gill et al. (2017) were estimated using long duration recordings (tens of minutes vs seconds in our study) from anesthetized animals (awake head-fixed animals in the current study). Additionally, neither of these previous studies addressed the process of epileptogenesis through repeated observations within the same animal.

To relate our findings of altered functional connectivity to the generation of epileptiform activity, we used a mathematical model. The model allowed us to define the relative contribution of nodes to the generation of epileptiform dynamics. Our model showed that the set of nodes that are important for epileptiform dynamics evolves over 4 weeks of epileptogenesis. Two of the three different methods we used to compute functional connectivity network revealed nodes outside of the injected hippocampus that were important contributors to epileptiform dynamics. Specifically, significant changes in the NI distribution of the CMIN connectivity networks (at which the cross-correlogram <0) capture the increase of NI over the injected hippocampus, which occurs 7 days after the injection and persists through to Day 28. In contrast, the CMAX connectivity networks (at which the cross-correlogram >0) reveal changes in the distribution of NI only at Day 28, involving multiple nodes that are located outside the injected hippocampus.

We hypothesize that CMIN and CMAX networks reflect two mechanisms that generate GSs. The first mechanism is local and related to the initial insult (the injected hippocampus), whereas the other mechanism is distributed and is a consequence of network remodeling. Importantly, Figure 4D–F shows that the second mechanism emerges at a time subsequent to the initial insult. This interpretation is consistent with the results of (Sheybani et al., 2018) in which pharmacological silencing of the injected hippocampus at Day 7 stopped GSs, whereas it had no effect when performed at Day 28. This suggests the evolving importance of a distributed network throughout epileptogenesis. In other words, results of the modeling suggest that the injected hippocampus is driving the epileptiform activity at Day 7, whereas at Day 28 the activity is driven by both the injected hippocampus as well as the wider network.

Additionally, we note that changes in NI across individual nodes are directly interpretable in terms of generation of the GSs and the results of the silencing experiments, whereas typical graph theory measures (e.g., degree imbalance or degree asymmetry) do not allow such direct interpretation. This observation provides further support for the use of mathematical models to uncover regions of the brain that are important for generating abnormal dynamics and to aid the interpretation of experimental and clinical data (Goodfellow et al., 2016; Schmidt et al., 2016; Bartolomei et al., 2017; Hebbink et al., 2017; Lopes et al., 2017, 2018; Melozzi et al., 2017; Proix et al., 2017). A natural next step would be to model the process of epileptogenesis itself to better understand why these changes occur, and why they occur in specific brain regions. Insights into spatial and temporal evolution of epileptogenesis could help to develop new treatments (Dichter, 2009; Lowenstein, 2009; Löscher and Brandt, 2010; Lopes Da Silva et al., 2012; Goldberg and Coulter, 2013; Löscher et al., 2015) and uncover reasons for seizure recurrence after epilepsy surgery (Mathon et al., 2017).

We express caution in relating observations made in this study to human epilepsy, as we expect mouse epicranial EEG contains contributions from brain structures that are subcortical in humans (e.g., hippocampus) and therefore would contribute less to the background human EEG (Gotman, 2008; Lam et al., 2017). The recordings analyzed herein are perhaps more analogous to ECoG or depth electrode recordings in humans. In this scenario, the approach of modeling activity recorded from invasive electrodes has shown promise in predicting the outcome of surgery in people with diverse “focal” epilepsies (Goodfellow et al., 2017; Lopes et al., 2017, 2018; Sinha et al., 2017). Our study advances our understanding of such approaches and demonstrates a framework that allows for their experimental validation.

Footnotes

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • This work was supported by Epilepsy Research UK via grant P1505 (“An optimal model for focal onset epilepsies”) to P.S., L.S., C.M.M., M.P.R., J.R.T., and MG; by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 323530-158125) to L.S.; by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust to M.P.R.; by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 320030-159705), by the National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) “SYNAPSY”, and by the CIBM from Geneva and Lausanne to C.M.M.; by the Foundation Ernst et Lucie Schmidheiny and by the Swiss League Against Epilepsy to C.Q.; by the Medical Research Council via grant MR/K013998/1 to M.G., M.P.R., and J.R.T.; by the EPSRC via grant EP/N014391/1 to M.P.R. and J.R.T; and by Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Awards (204909/Z/16/Z and WT105618MA) to P.S., M.G., and J.R.T .

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided that the original work is properly attributed.

References

  1. ↵
    Aarts JHP, Binnie CD, Smit AM, Wilkins AJ (1984) Selective cognitive impairment during focal and generalized epileptiform EEG activity. Brain 107:293–308. doi:10.1093/brain/107.1.293
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Arabadzisz D, Antal K, Parpan F, Emri Z, Fritschy JM (2005) Epileptogenesis and chronic seizures in a mouse model of temporal lobe epilepsy are associated with distinct EEG patterns and selective neurochemical alterations in the contralateral hippocampus. Exp Neurol 194:76–90. doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2005.01.029
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Bartolomei F, Lagarde S, Wendling F, McGonigal A, Jirsa V, Guye M, Bénar C (2017) Defining epileptogenic networks: contribution of SEEG and signal analysis. Epilepsia 58:1131–1147. doi:10.1111/epi.13791
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Royal Stat Soc B 57:289–300. doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    Borg I, Groenen PJ (2005) Modern multidimensional scaling: theory and applications. New York: Springer.
  6. ↵
    Bouilleret V, Ridoux V, Depaulis A, Marescaux C, Nehlig A, Le Gal La Salle G (1999) Recurrent seizures and hippocampal sclerosis following intrahippocampal kainate injection in adult mice: electroencephalography, histopathology and synaptic reorganization similar to mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Neuroscience 89:717–729. doi:10.1016/s0306-4522(98)00401-1 pmid:10199607
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Chauvière L, Doublet T, Ghestem A, Siyoucef SS, Wendling F, Huys R, Jirsa V, Bartolomei F, Bernard C (2012) Changes in interictal spike features precede the onset of temporal lobe epilepsy. Ann Neurol 71:805–814. doi:10.1002/ana.23549 pmid:22718546
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Chowdhury FA, Woldman W, FitzGerald THB, Elwes RDC, Nashef L, Terry JR, Richardson MP (2014) Revealing a brain network endophenotype in families with idiopathic generalised epilepsy. Plos One 9:e110136. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110136
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Christodoulakis M, Hadjipapas A, Papathanasiou ES, Anastasiadou M, Papacostas SS, Mitsis GD (2015) On the effect of volume conduction on graph theoretic measures of brain networks in epilepsy. In: Modern electroencephalographic assessment techniques: theory and applications ( Sakkalis V , ed), pp 103–130. New York: Springer.
  10. ↵
    Coito A, Plomp G, Genetti M, Abela E, Wiest R, Seeck M, Michel CM, Vulliemoz S (2015) Dynamic directed interictal connectivity in left and right temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia 56:207–217. doi:10.1111/epi.12904 pmid:25599821
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    Dichter MA (2009) Emerging concepts in the pathogenesis of epilepsy and epileptogenesis. Arch Neurol 66:443–447. doi:10.1001/archneurol.2009.10 pmid:19364928
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    Englot DJ, Hinkley LB, Kort NS, Imber BS, Mizuiri D, Honma SM, Findlay AM, Garrett C, Cheung PL, Mantle M, Tarapore PE, Knowlton RC, Chang EF, Kirsch HE, Nagarajan SS (2015) Global and regional functional connectivity maps of neural oscillations in focal epilepsy. Brain 138:2249–2262. doi:10.1093/brain/awv130 pmid:25981965
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Ermentrout G, Kopell N (1986) Parabolic bursting in an excitable system coupled with a slow oscillation. SIAM J Appl Math 46:233–253. doi:10.1137/0146017
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    Gill RS, Mirsattari SM, Leung LS (2017) Resting state functional network disruptions in a kainic acid model of temporal lobe epilepsy. Neuroimage Clin 13:70–81. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2016.11.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    Goldberg EM, Coulter DA (2013) Mechanisms of epileptogenesis: a convergence on neural circuit dysfunction. Nat Rev Neurosci 14:337–349. doi:10.1038/nrn3482 pmid:23595016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    Golub GH, Loan CF (1996) Matrix computations, Ed 3. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
  17. ↵
    Goodfellow M, Rummel C, Abela E, Richardson MP, Schindler K, Terry JR (2016) Estimation of brain network ictogenicity predicts outcome from epilepsy surgery. Sci Rep 6:29215.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    Goodfellow M, Rummel C, Abela E, Richardson MP, Schindler K, Terry JR (2017) Computer models to inform epilepsy surgery strategies: prediction of postoperative outcome. Brain 140:e30. doi:10.1093/brain/awx067
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    Gotman J (2008) Epileptic networks studied with EEG-fMRI. Epilepsia 49:42–51. doi:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01509.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    Gröticke I, Hoffmann K, Löscher W (2008) Behavioral alterations in a mouse model of temporal lobe epilepsy induced by intrahippocampal injection of kainate. Exp Neurol 213:71–83. doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2008.04.036
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    Häussler U, Bielefeld L, Froriep UP, Wolfart J, Haas CA (2012) Septotemporal position in the hippocampal formation determines epileptic and neurogenic activity in temporal lobe epilepsy. Cereb Cortex 22:26–36. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr054 pmid:21572089
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Hebbink J, Meijer H, Huiskamp G, van Gils S, Leijten F (2017) Phenomenological network models: lessons for epilepsy surgery. Epilepsia 58:e147–e151. doi:10.1111/epi.13861 pmid:28744852
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Hentschke H, Stüttgen MC (2011) Computation of measures of effect size for neuroscience data sets. Eur J Neurosci 34:1887–1894. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07902.x pmid:22082031
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Huneau C, Benquet P, Dieuset G, Biraben A, Martin B, Wendling F (2013) Shape features of epileptic spikes are a marker of epileptogenesis in mice. Epilepsia 54:2219–2227. doi:10.1111/epi.12406 pmid:24134559
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    Khambhati AN, Davis KA, Lucas TH, Litt B, Bassett DS (2016) Virtual cortical resection reveals push-pull network control preceding seizure evolution. Neuron 91:1170–1182. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.07.039 pmid:27568515
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    Lam AD, Deck G, Goldman A, Eskandar EN, Noebels J, Cole AJ (2017) Silent hippocampal seizures and spikes identified by foramen ovale electrodes in Alzheimer’s disease. Nat Med 23:678–680. doi:10.1038/nm.4330
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. ↵
    Lévesque M, Avoli M (2013) The kainic acid model of temporal lobe epilepsy. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 37:2887–2899. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.10.011 pmid:24184743
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    Li Y, Zhang ZL (2012) Digraph Laplacian and the degree of asymmetry. Internet Math 8:381–401. doi:10.1080/15427951.2012.708890
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    Lopes Da Silva FH, Gorter JA, Wadman WJ (2012) Epilepsy as a dynamic disease of neuronal networks. Handb Clin Neurol 107:35–62.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. ↵
    Lopes MA, Richardson MP, Abela E, Rummel C, Schindler K, Goodfellow M, Terry JR (2017) An optimal strategy for epilepsy surgery: disruption of the rich-club?. PLoS Comput Biol 13:e1005637. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005637 pmid:28817568
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Lopes MA, Richardson MP, Abela E, Rummel C, Schindler K, Goodfellow M, Terry JR (2018) Elevated ictal brain network ictogenicity enables prediction of optimal seizure control. Front Neurol 9:98. doi:10.3389/fneur.2018.00098 pmid:29545769
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    Löscher W, Brandt C (2010) Prevention or modification of epileptogenesis after brain insults: experimental approaches and translational research. Pharmacol Rev 62:668. doi:10.1124/pr.110.003046 pmid:21079040
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    Löscher W, Hirsch LJ, Schmidt D (2015) The enigma of the latent period in the development of symptomatic acquired epilepsy: traditional view versus new concepts. Epilepsy Behav 52:78–92. doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.08.037 pmid:26409135
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    Lowenstein DH (2009) Epilepsy after head injury: an overview. Epilepsia 50:4–9. doi:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.02004.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    Mathon B, Bielle F, Samson S, Plaisant O, Dupont S, Bertrand A, Miles R, Nguyen-Michel V-H, Lambrecq V, Calderon-Garcidueñas AL, Duyckaerts C, Carpentier A, Baulac M, Cornu P, Adam C, Clemenceau S, Navarro V (2017) Predictive factors of long-term outcomes of surgery for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy associated with hippocampal sclerosis. Epilepsia 58:1473–1485. doi:10.1111/epi.13831 pmid:28656696
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    Melozzi F, Woodman MM, Jirsa VK, Bernard C (2017) The virtual mouse brain: a computational neuroinformatics platform to study whole mouse brain dynamics. eNeuro 4:ENEURO.0111-17.2017.
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    Mohamed A, Wyllie E, Ruggieri P, Kotagal P, Babb T, Hilbig A, Wylie C, Ying Z, Staugaitis S, Najm I, Bulacio J, Foldvary N, Lüders H, Bingaman W (2001) Temporal lobe epilepsy due to hippocampal sclerosis in pediatric candidates for epilepsy surgery. Neurology 56:1643–1649. doi:10.1212/wnl.56.12.1643 pmid:11425928
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    Moseley BD, Sinha S, Meyer FB, Marsh WR, Britton JW (2012) Long term outcomes in patients with preoperative generalized interictal epileptiform abnormalities following amygdalohippocampectomy. Epilepsy Res 99:171–175. doi:10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2011.10.007 pmid:22050979
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    Niso G, Carrasco S, Gudín M, Maestú F, del-Pozo F, Pereda E (2015) What graph theory actually tells us about resting state interictal MEG epileptic activity. Neuroimage Clin 8:503–515. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2015.05.008
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. ↵
    Nissen IA, Stam CJ, Reijneveld JC, van Straaten I, Hendriks EJ, Baayen JC, De Witt Hamer PC, Idema S, Hillebrand A (2017) Identifying the epileptogenic zone in interictal resting-state MEG source-space networks. Epilepsia 58:137–148. doi:10.1111/epi.13622
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. ↵
    Otte WM, Dijkhuizen RM, van Meer MP, van der Hel WS, Verlinde S, van Nieuwenhuizen O, Viergever MA, Stam CJ, Braun KPJ (2012) Characterization of functional and structural integrity in experimental focal epilepsy: reduced network efficiency coincides with white matter changes. Plos One 7:e39078. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039078
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    Proix T, Bartolomei F, Guye M, Jirsa VK (2017) Individual brain structure and modelling predict seizure propagation. Brain 140:641–654. doi:10.1093/brain/awx004 pmid:28364550
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    Riban V, Bouilleret V, Pham-Lê BT, Fritschy JM, Marescaux C, Depaulis A (2002) Evolution of hippocampal epileptic activity during the development of hippocampal sclerosis in a mouse model of temporal lobe epilepsy. Neuroscience 112:101–111. doi:10.1016/S0306-4522(02)00064-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    Rummel C, Abela E, Andrzejak RG, Hauf M, Pollo C, Müller M, Weisstanner C, Wiest R, Schindler K (2015) Resected brain tissue, seizure onset zone and quantitative EEG measures: towards prediction of post-surgical seizure control. Plos One 10:e0141023. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141023 pmid:26513359
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    Salami P, Lévesque M, Benini R, Behr C, Gotman J, Avoli M (2014) Dynamics of interictal spikes and high-frequency oscillations during epileptogenesis in temporal lobe epilepsy. Neurobiol Dis 67:97–106. doi:10.1016/j.nbd.2014.03.012 pmid:24686305
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    Schmidt H, Petkov G, Richardson MP, Terry JR (2014) Dynamics on networks: the role of local dynamics and global networks on the emergence of hypersynchronous neural activity. PLoS Comput Biol 10:e1003947. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003947 pmid:25393751
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    Schmidt H, Woldman W, Goodfellow M, Chowdhury FA, Koutroumanidis M, Jewell S, Richardson MP, Terry JR (2016) A computational biomarker of idiopathic generalized epilepsy from resting state EEG. Epilepsia 57:e200–e204. doi:10.1111/epi.13481 pmid:27501083
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    Schreiber T, Schmitz A (1996) Improved surrogate data for nonlinearity tests. Phys Rev Lett 77:635–638. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.635 pmid:10062864
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    Sheybani L, Birot G, Contestabile A, Seeck M, Zoltan Kiss J, Schaller K, Michel CM, Quairiaux C (2018) Electrophysiological evidence for the development of a self-sustained large-scale epileptic network in the kainate mouse-model of temporal lobe epilepsy. J Neurosci 38:3776–3791.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    Sinha N, Dauwels J, Kaiser M, Cash SS, Brandon Westover M, Wang Y, Taylor PN (2017) Predicting neurosurgical outcomes in focal epilepsy patients using computational modelling. Brain 140:319–332. doi:10.1093/brain/aww299 pmid:28011454
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    Smith EH, Schevon CA (2016) Toward a mechanistic understanding of epileptic networks. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 16:97. doi:10.1007/s11910-016-0701-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    Soriano MC, Niso G, Clements J, Ortín S, Carrasco S, Gudín M, Mirasso CR, Pereda E (2017) Automated detection of epileptic biomarkers in resting-state interictal MEG data. Front Neuroinform 11:43. doi:10.3389/fninf.2017.00043 pmid:28713260
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    Tracy JI, Doucet GE (2015) Resting-state functional connectivity in epilepsy: growing relevance for clinical decision making. Curr Opin Neurol 28:158–165. doi:10.1097/WCO.0000000000000178 pmid:25734954
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    van Dellen E, Douw L, Hillebrand A, de Witt Hamer PC, Baayen JC, Heimans JJ, Reijneveld JC, Stam CJ (2014) Epilepsy surgery outcome and functional network alterations in longitudinal MEG: a minimum spanning tree analysis. Neuroimage 86:354–363. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.10.010 pmid:24128736
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    Wang HE, Bénar CG, Quilichini PP, Friston KJ, Jirsa VK, Bernard C (2014) A systematic framework for functional connectivity measures. Front Neurosci 8:405.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    Woldman W, Terry JR (2015) Multilevel computational modelling in epilepsy: classical studies and recent advances. In: Validating neuro-computational models of neurological and psychiatric disorders ( Bhattacharya BS, Chowdhury FN , eds), pp 161–188. Cham: Springer.
  57. ↵
    World Health Organization (2019) Epilepsy. Available at https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/epilepsy.

Synthesis

Reviewing Editor: Maiken Nedergaard, University of Rochester Medical Center

Decisions are customarily a result of the Reviewing Editor and the peer reviewers coming together and discussing their recommendations until a consensus is reached. When revisions are invited, a fact-based synthesis statement explaining their decision and outlining what is needed to prepare a revision will be listed below. The following reviewer(s) agreed to reveal their identity: Piotr Suffczynski, Holger Lerche.

In general, the reviewers appreciated the study and have no major critique. We will, therefore, request that you frevise the manuscript and provide a point-to-point letter that described the requested revisions.

Reviewer #1:

The Ms describes properties of functional networks at different stages of epieleptogenesis in the kainic acid model of temporal lobe epilepsy. Such longitudinal analysis has not been done before.

The Ms concerns connectivity analysis in the kainic acid model of temporal lobe epilepsy. The authors investigate time evolution of functional networks based on resting state EEG kainate-treated mice. They convincingly show progressive changes in pattern of connectivity during epileptogenesis. The study is well written and the results are novel. I suggest acceptance after minor revision.

Main point

The authors observe increased hemispheric asymmetry of the functional networks during epileptogenesis and interpret it as a loss of functional connectivity between hemispheres (pg. 9, ln. 434). The cross-correlation coefficients were normalized with the sum of all elements of the connectivity matrix (pg. 4). Hence, relative decrease of inter-hemispheric coupling may be indeed due to loss of functional connectivity between hemispheres or due to increase of functional connectivity between other areas, e.g., intra-hemispheric, with functional inter-hemispheric coupling preserved. The Authors should discuss this point, especially that some other studies, which used BOLD signals correlations and non-normalized cross-correlation matrices showed increase of both inter- and intra-hemispheric connectivity in kainate-treated rats (Gill et al., 2017).

Minor points:

- Reference at pg 11, ln 525 is: Da Silva FHL, Gorter JA, Wadman WJ (2012) ...., while it should be Lopes da Silva FH, Gorter JA, Wadman WJ (2012) ...... (the surname is Lopes da Silva, the names are Fernando, Henrique).

- pg. 4, abbreviations FWER, IAAFT are used without explanation. They might be not obvious for all readers. Please explain.

- pg. 6, ln247-250:

„AUROC=0 means that all scores in the tested group are smaller than the scores of the control group;

AUROC=1 means that all scores in the tested group are smaller than the scores of the control group.”

The statements are identical. Is it correct?

- Section on pg. 6, ln 286-288 is redundant with that on pg. 3, ln. 135-138.

- TTX silencing is mentioned on pg. 9, ln 406. Please provide short explanation, such that one doesn't need to read the original publication (Sheybani et al., 2018).

References:

Ravnoor Singh Gill, Seyed M. Mirsattari and L. Stan Leung. Resting state functional network disruptions in a kainic acid model of temporal lobe epilepsy. Neuroimage Clin. 2017; 13: 70-81.

Sheybani L, Birot G, Contestabile A, Seeck M, Zoltan Kiss J, Schaller K, Michel CM, Quairiaux C (2018) Electrophysiological evidence for the development of a self-sustained large- scale epileptic network in the kainate mouse-model of temporal lobe epilepsy. Journal of Neuroscience

The reviewer does not believe that the supplementary material is justified

Reviewer #2:

The authors report about the evolution of network dynamics measured with 30 EEG electrodes distributed over the whole brain in a classical mouse model for temporal lobe epilepsy (intrahippocampal kainate injection). The find changes in networks which parallel the development of epileptogenesis. The work is original, since such longitudinal studies have not been performed so far, neither in animal models, nor in humans.

Comments

The authors do not report about which of the two hippocampi was injected and how the evolution matches the development of epileptogensis on the injected side vs. the non-injected side. This is particularly important, since the epileptogenic process is different on both sides and the network changes are changing side with time. It is also not clear, if only the injected hippocampus was silenced at different time points (day 7 or day 28) or also the other one in the preceeding paper from the authors took the data for their analysis. The authors should clearly report this and explicitely correlate the unilateral and asymmetric network changes to the occurrence of spikes on the injected and uninjected side in the respective animals. They so far write only about ‘generalized spikes’ (which in fact represent a fast bilateral synchrony derived from focal spikes), which would be unusual for a unilateral injection process.

The manuscript is generally well written but there are some minor language inaccuracies, which should be solved, best by a native English speaker, some of which are given below:

Line 13/14: should read ‘...emerges as particularly important for the network dynamics.’ (?)

Line 356: should read ‘...located above the left hippocampus...’

Line 370: ‘...networks...’

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 6 (4)
eNeuro
Vol. 6, Issue 4
July/August 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Background EEG Connectivity Captures the Time-Course of Epileptogenesis in a Mouse Model of Epilepsy
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Background EEG Connectivity Captures the Time-Course of Epileptogenesis in a Mouse Model of Epilepsy
Piotr Słowiński, Laurent Sheybani, Christoph M. Michel, Mark P. Richardson, Charles Quairiaux, John R. Terry, Marc Goodfellow
eNeuro 25 July 2019, 6 (4) ENEURO.0059-19.2019; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0059-19.2019

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Background EEG Connectivity Captures the Time-Course of Epileptogenesis in a Mouse Model of Epilepsy
Piotr Słowiński, Laurent Sheybani, Christoph M. Michel, Mark P. Richardson, Charles Quairiaux, John R. Terry, Marc Goodfellow
eNeuro 25 July 2019, 6 (4) ENEURO.0059-19.2019; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0059-19.2019
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • epilepsy
  • background EEG
  • model
  • epileptogenesis
  • functional networks

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • Heterozygous Dab1 null mutation disrupts neocortical and hippocampal development
  • The nasal solitary chemosensory cell signaling pathway triggers mouse avoidance behavior to inhaled nebulized irritants
  • Different control strategies drive interlimb differences in performance and adaptation during reaching movements in novel dynamics
Show more New Research

Disorders of the Nervous System

  • Characterization of the Tau Interactome in Human Brain Reveals Isoform-Dependent Interaction with 14-3-3 Family Proteins
  • Impaired AMPARs translocation into dendritic spines with motor skill learning in the Fragile X mouse model
  • Glycolytic System in Axons Supplement Decreased ATP Levels after Axotomy of the Peripheral Nerve
Show more Disorders of the Nervous System

Subjects

  • Disorders of the Nervous System

  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.