Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Jan 27;21(1):e0320711. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320711

Layer V Neocortical neurons from individuals With drug-resistant epilepsy show multiple synaptic alterations but lack somatic hyperexcitability

Luis A Márquez 1,¤a, Christopher Martínez-Aguirre 1,¤b, Estefanía Gutierrez-Castañeda 1, Ernesto Griego 1,¤b, Isabel Sollozo-Dupont 4, Félix López-Preza 1, Mario Alonso-Vanegas 3, Luisa Rocha Arrieta 1, Emilio J Galván 1,2,*
Editor: Michele Giugliano5
PMCID: PMC12843513  PMID: 41592024

Abstract

Although neuronal hyperexcitability is the primary mechanism underlying seizure activity in epilepsy, little is known about how different neuronal mechanisms at different organizational levels contribute to network hyperexcitability in the human epileptic brain. In this study, we determined a series of cellular and synaptic properties of Layer V pyramidal neurons from neocortical tissue of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy that may contribute to the hyperexcitable state associated with epilepsy. Using the whole cell, patch-clamp technique, and extracellular recordings, we determined the passive and active electrophysiological properties of Layer V pyramidal neurons with regular spiking phenotypes from temporal, parietal, and frontal neocortices surgically resected from individuals with drug-resistant epilepsy. Also, the glutamatergic strength, the synaptic coupling between presynaptic volleys and field excitatory postsynaptic potentials, and short-term, frequency-dependent plasticity were determined. Our data revealed that pyramidal neurons exhibit minimal spontaneous synaptic activity, similar resting membrane potentials, and input resistance values among the temporal, parietal, and frontal neocortices. Although frontal neurons were more hyperexcitable than temporal and parietal neurons, the firing output was comparable to that previously observed in non-pathological human tissue. In contrast, the extracellular recordings uncovered significant decoupling between presynaptic excitability and postsynaptic activity and the lack of short-term depression in response to gamma-range (30 Hz) repetitive stimulation. Our data suggest that neocortical Layer V pyramidal neurons from individuals with drug-resistance epilepsy, particularly intratelencephalic-2 neurons, which exhibit regular firing, are not necessarily hyperexcitable at the somatic level. Instead, synaptic alterations, such as synaptic decoupling and the lack of frequency-dependent short-term depression, may significantly contribute to the hyperexcitable state observed during seizure activity.

Introduction

Although significant progress has been made in animal models to understand the intrinsic and synaptic alterations that can trigger neuronal hyperexcitability, —a hallmark of epilepsy alongside recurrent seizure activity [1–6],— the translation of these neurophysiological findings to the brain of patients with epilepsy remains largely unverified, with few exceptions [7,8]. In this line of work, neocortical hyperexcitability at the network level is recognized as a central mechanism underlying seizure activity [7,9]. However, the potential contribution of mechanisms operating at lower organizational levels, such as cellular and synaptic mechanisms, remains less well understood [3,10,11].

Conceptually, multiple neuronal mechanisms operating at different organizational levels may contribute to the emergence of network hyperexcitability. At lower levels, such as the cellular and synaptic, alterations in ion channel function and intrinsic membrane properties can modify cellular excitability. In contrast, changes in synaptic interactions within local circuits can alter synaptic drive and plasticity [3,10], thereby influencing the propagation of electrical activity. At higher levels, including the network and system levels, interactions between neural circuits, or even between the nervous and immune systems, may further promote hyperexcitability [3]. Despite significant advances, the precise nature of hyperexcitability remains unknown, raising the question of whether network hyperexcitability in epilepsy results from the convergence of multiple mechanisms across organizational levels or from alterations at only a subset of them.

A more realistic approach to studying the cellular and synaptic mechanisms underlying the hyperexcitable state associated with epilepsy is to directly examine pathological brain tissue from surgical procedures in epileptic patients. Nevertheless, given the limited access and bioethical concerns in obtaining human tissue, these findings are often compared with results from analogous structures in the rodent brain. Furthermore, a growing number of studies have documented numerous differences between rodent and human brain structures. For example, the process of synaptic integration in pyramidal cells (PCs) of the neocortex differs between rodents and humans [12–14]. These subtle differences extend to the functional expression of ion channels, their biophysical properties, neuronal firing, short-term plasticity, and information-processing efficiency [15,16]. Likewise, morphological differences exist between the human and rodent neocortex, including dendritic complexity of pyramidal neurons [17,18]. These differences, along with a limited understanding of human neuronal physiology in its normal state [10,11], may contribute to misinterpretations of the cellular mechanisms underlying hyperexcitability in epilepsy.

Remarkably, Layer V PCs have been identified as a primary source of interictal discharges in epilepsy [19–21], a phenomenon that may be partially explained by their morphological and biophysical properties [22,23], Therefore, this study examined the biophysical and synaptic differences of Layer V PCs in the temporal, parietal, and frontal cortices resected from patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE). Patch-clamp recordings in acute human neocortical slices were used to classify PCs based on their membrane properties and firing patterns, as previously reported [24]. Extracellular recordings assessed synaptic strength, coupling between presynaptic volleys and excitatory postsynaptic potentials, and short-term plasticity in response to gamma-range stimulation. Due to the inherent challenge of obtaining ‘healthy’ tissue for comparative purposes (see [11]), the findings from this study were interpreted alongside studies using non-pathological tissue. Our results suggest that intrinsic cellular and synaptic mechanisms in Layer V PCs may contribute differentially to the dominant network hyperexcitability observed during seizures in patients with DRE.

Materials and methods

Preparation of human cortical slices

Neocortical brain tissue of the temporal, parietal, or frontal neocortex was obtained during surgical procedures of 10 patients with DRE (Table 1). The resected brain samples were obtained directly from epileptic foci identified by intraoperative electrocorticograms, which confirm their hyperexcitable nature at the network level. Tissue samples were collected between June 21, 2022, and July 23, 2023. This study was authorized by the Ethics, Biosecurity, and Scientific Committee of the National Commitment on Scientific Research (CNIC-785) of Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social under number FR-2019-785-008 that waived the consent from parents of the minors included in the study.

Table 1. Clinical variables of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy.

ID Sex Age
(years)
Age of seizure onset (years) Duration of epilepsy
(years)
Frequency of the seizures
(per month)
Location of the focus ASMs administered before surgery
HUM-209 F 21 10 11 7 Left temporal lobe LEV, OXC, NMP
HUM-210 F 30 13 17 20 Right frontal lobe OXC, LEV, TOP
HUM-211 M 21 13 8 12 Right temporal lobe LEV, VPA, PAL, OXC, ZSM
HUM-214 M 2.6 1.2 1.4 10 Right frontal lobe LEV, LAC
HUM-221 F 27 NA NA NA Right temporal lobe LEV, LAC, PAL, OXC
HUM-215 M 16 10 6 150 Left frontal lobe LAC, LEV, CLB, CZM, VAP, LAM
HUM-216 F 2 0.9 1.1 3 Left parietal lobe LEV, CLB, VAP, LAM, OXC
HUM-217 F 7 1.25 5.75 NA Left parietal lobe LEV, OXC, BRI, PAL, LAC, VPA, CLB
HUM-218 F 24 16 8 NA Right frontal lobe LAM, VAP, LEV
HUM-219 M 4 2.75 1.25 1 Right parietal lobe VPA

ASMs, Antiseizure medications; BRI, brivaracetam; CBZ, carbamazepine; CLB, clobazam; CZM, clonazepam; F, female; LAC, lacosamide; LAM, lamotrigine; LEV, levetiracetam; M, male; NA, not available; NMP, nimodipine; OXC, oxcarbazepine; PAL, perampanel; TOP, topiramate; VPA, valproic acid; ZSM, zonisamide.

Immediately after resection, the epileptic neocortex was placed in ice-cold isotonic buffer solution (in mM: 320 sucrose, 1 EDTA, 5 Tris-HCl; pH = 7.4; ≈ 315 mOsm) with continuous bubbling of carbogen (95% O2/5% CO2 at 0.5 L/min). The transportation time between the resection and the beginning of slice preparation in the neurophysiology laboratory was less than 45 minutes. The experimental procedures (protocols: 055/2018 and 055/2019) were approved by our institution’s internal ethics committee. The procedures for obtaining brain tissue from epileptic patients (protocol FR-2019-785-008) were approved by the internal ethics committees of the involved medical institutions, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Parental consent was obtained for all minor participants. Patients’ clinical variables, such as sex, age, epileptic focus location, and drug treatment, are summarized in Table 1.

In the laboratory, brain tissue samples were transferred to a chilled sucrose solution while carbogen was maintained. The sucrose solution composition was (in mM; ≈ 290 mOsm): 210 sucrose, 2.8 KCl, 2 MgSO4, 1.25 Na2HPO4, 25 NaHCO3, 1 MgCl2, 1 CaCl2, and 10 D-glucose. Then, coronal slices of the human neocortex (350 µM thickness) were obtained from neocortical tissue blocks dissected from the tissue samples. The neocortical tissue blocks were sliced perpendicular to the pial surface using a vibratome (Leica VT1000S; Nussloch, Germany). Next, the acute slices were maintained at 34°C for 25–30 minutes in artificial cerebrospinal fluid solution (ACSF; pH ≈ 7.30–7.35; ≈ 315–320 mOsm) with the following composition (in mM): 125 NaCl, 2.5 KCl, 1.25 Na2HPO4, 25 NaHCO3, 4 MgCl2, 1 CaCl2, and 10 D-glucose. Then, the slices were maintained at room temperature for at least 1 hour before whole-cell patch-clamp and extracellular recordings were performed. For the recordings, an extracellular solution (modified ACSF) was continuously perfused to slices containing (in mM; ≈ 290–295 mOsm): 125 NaCl, 2.5 KCl, 1.25 Na2HPO4, 25 NaHCO3, 1.5 MgCl2, 2.5 CaCl2, and 10 D-glucose. All recordings were performed at 32.5 ± 1°C.

Whole-cell recordings

The PCs were visualized with infrared differential interference contrast optics coupled to an FN1 Eclipse microscope (Nikon Corporation, Minato, Tokyo, Japan). PCs located in Layer V were identified based on their characteristic shape (broad base, pointed apex, and a single dendritic elongation pointing towards the pia-cortex) and position. The patch pipettes were pulled from borosilicate glass using a micropipette puller (P97, Sutter Instruments, Novato, CA, USA). The pipette tips had a resistance of 4–6 MΩ when filled with an intracellular solution (pH ≈ 7.20–7.28, osmolarity ≈ 315–325 mOsm/L) with the following composition (in mM): 135 K+-gluconate, 10 KCl, 5 NaCl, 1 ethylene glycol-bis(β-aminoethyl ether)-N,N,N′,N′-tetraacetic acid (EGTA), 10 N-(2-hydroxyethyl)piperazine-N′-(2-ethane sulfonic acid) (HEPES), 2 Mg2+-ATP, 0.4 Na+-GTP, and 10 phosphocreatine. Biocytin (0.4%) was routinely added to the intracellular solution for post hoc digital reconstructions and morphological analysis of the recorded neurons. Whole-cell patch-clamp recordings were performed using an Axopatch 200B amplifier (Molecular Devices, San José, CA, USA), digitized at 40 kHz, and filtered at 1 kHz with a Digidata 1550B (Axon Instruments, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Digital signals were acquired and analyzed offline using pCLAMP 11.2 (Molecular Devices).

Determination of passive and active electrophysiological properties

The resting membrane potential (RMP) was measured after the initial break-in from giga-seal to whole-cell configuration in current-clamp mode, followed by the determination of spontaneous synaptic activity (SSA), which was monitored for 3 minutes in gap-free mode. Next, the cells were held at RMP, and a series of hyperpolarizing and depolarizing current pulses (from −300 pA to 60 pA; 30 pA steps, 1 s of duration) were somatically injected to determine the current-voltage (I–V) relationship, somatic input resistance (RN), membrane time constant (τ), and membrane capacitance. RN determined as the slope of a linear fit (f(x)=mx+b) to the steady-state I–V plot elicited by subthreshold current injection (−60–0 pA). τ was calculated by fitting a single exponential function (f(t)= ∑i=1nAi e−tτi+C) to a voltage response elicited by a current pulse of −30 pA. Membrane capacitance (pF) was calculated as τ/ RN. Next, cells were held at −70 mV, and the rheobase and latency to the first action potential (AP) were measured using depolarizing current ramps (30 pA steps, 500 ms duration). The AP kinetic measurements included half-width (H-W), maximal depolarization slope (MDS), and maximal repolarization slope (MRS). These kinetic parameters were depicted in phase plots, constructed by plotting the first derivative of membrane potential, dV/dt (mV/ms), as a function of membrane potential. The firing threshold at rheobase was defined as the membrane potential at which dV/dt exceeded 15 mV/ms. To determine the recorded cells’ excitability level, a series of firing rate–current curves were constructed by computing the number of elicited APs in response to increasing current injection from 0 to 390 pA (30 pA steps; 1s duration). From these curves, the neuronal gain was calculated as the slope of a linear fit to the steady-state rate firing–current plot obtained by current injection from 90 to 210 pA, which showed null or sparse firing adaptation. Series resistance was monitored throughout the recording and ranged from 14 to 25 MΩ. Cells that exhibited a > 20% change were excluded from the analysis. The uncorrected liquid junction potential was 12–13 mV.

Classification of neocortical cells according to firing pattern

PCs’ electrophysiological identity was determined by visualizing neuronal firing patterns and analyzing spike frequency adaptation [25]. Spike frequency adaptation was calculated as the slope of the linear fit to the relationship between the interspike interval (ms) and the time of occurrence (ms) of the second spike in each pair of consecutive spikes, elicited by a 210 pA current pulse (1 s). The slope values revealed that PCs exhibited three distinct firing patterns: regular spiking (RS), intrinsic bursting, and adaptive firing. In addition, the instantaneous firing frequency (IFF) was computed as the reciprocal value of the ISI during consecutive APs. These data were plotted as the instantaneous firing frequency of each AP elicited by increasing current pulses (120–360 pA; 1 s) for each neuronal firing type.

Extracellular recordings

Extracellular recordings were used to analyze the synaptic strength. A bipolar stimulation electrode was placed in Layer I/II, and the resulting field excitatory postsynaptic potential (fEPSP) was recorded in Layer Va with a borosilicate pipette (resistance: 1–2 MΩ when filled with 3M NaCl solution). The current pulses were delivered via a high-voltage isolation unit (A365D; World Precision Instruments, Sarasota, FL, USA) under the command of a Master-8 pulse generator (AMPI, Jerusalem, Israel). Electrical responses were amplified using a Dagan BVC-700A amplifier (Minneapolis, MN, USA) connected with a 100x gain headstage (Dagan, model 8024) and a high-pass filter set at 0.3 Hz. Additional electrical noise suppression was achieved using a Humbug device (Quest Scientific Instruments; North Vancouver, BC, Canada). The evoked fEPSPs were displayed on a computer-based oscilloscope and digitized with an A/D converter (BNC-2110) for storage and offline analysis with LabVIEW 7.1 software (National Instruments, Austin, TX, USA).

Characterization of fEPSP Waveform, Paired-Pulse Ratio, Frequency-Dependent Short-Term Plasticity, and Neuronal Coupling

The fEPSPs were acquired at 0.067 Hz with current pulses (200–250 µA) of 100 µs duration. Ten consecutive sweeps were averaged, then analyzed to measure the kinetic parameters of the fEPSP waveform. For each fEPSP, the amplitude (measured in mV), H-W (ms), peak time (ms), fiber volley (FV) amplitude (mV), and slope (mV/ms from 10% to 80% of response) were measured with custom-made software written in LabVIEW 7.1 or pCLAMP 11.2 software.

For paired-pulse ratio (PPR) analysis, 12 consecutive synaptic responses with paired stimulation (inter-stimulus interval of 60 ms; 15%–20% of maximal response) were acquired at 0.067 Hz. The PPR was calculated as the ratio of the second response’s amplitude to the first response’s amplitude. To determine short-term plasticity in response to brief high-frequency stimulation, the fEPSP baseline response was set to 50% of its maximal amplitude and then recorded for 10 min, as previously reported [26]. Then, a train of 10 current pulses (100 µs in duration) at 30 Hz was delivered in Layers I and II. The train’s evoked synaptic responses were normalized to the slope of its first synaptic response and plotted as the number of stimuli vs. normalized fEPSP slope (%). Additionally, spontaneous postsynaptic potentials were detected and quantified during train stimulation. These events occurred more than 10 ms after electrical stimuli and were therefore considered spontaneous, likely generated by short-term synaptic properties rather than evoked activity. The spontaneous postsynaptic potentials were detected using pCLAMP 11.2 software according to the following criteria: an inward-directed waveform, an amplitude > 0.15 mV, and a duration > 1 ms.

To establish the relationship between presynaptic action potentials (fiber volleys, FV) and fEPSPs in the neocortical region, a Pearson correlation analysis (r2) was used. The least squares method was applied to find the equation of the best-fitting curve or line to the dataset, considering the following formula: y = mx + b, where y is the dependent variable (fEPSP), x is the independent variable (FV), m is the slope of the line, and b is the y-intercept. As a reference group for normal synaptic coupling, we performed a similar analysis using previously published data from Layer V of the rat prefrontal cortex [27]. The formulas to calculate the slope (m) and intercept (b) of the line are derived from the following equations:

m=n(∑xy)−(∑x)(∑y)n(∑x2)−(∑x)2; b=(∑y)−m(∑x)n, where n is the number of data points, ∑xy is the sum of the product of each pair of x and y values, ∑x is the sum of all x values, ∑y is the sum of all y values, and ∑x2 is the sum of the squares of x values.

The observed values of x were used in conjunction with the formula y = mx + b to calculate the predicted values of y. The residual values were estimated as the difference between the observed y values and the predicted y values. Lastly, an exploratory analysis (EA) of the residuals was conducted to assess the feasibility of using the least squares method. The EA used the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, which assesses whether the residuals follow a specific distribution, thereby helping us evaluate the normality assumption required by the least squares method. Additionally, the biases of the residuals were determined using a one-sample Student’s t-test. This test allowed us to evaluate whether the residuals’ mean deviated significantly from zero, helping us identify any systematic bias in the model’s predictions. A non-significant result would suggest that the model’s predictions were unbiased.

Immunostaining of biocytin-filled neurons, confocal image acquisition, and analysis of dendritic complexity

Slices containing the biocytin-filled neurons obtained from the patch-clamp recordings were fixed in 4% PFA solution in 0.1 M PB (pH = 7.4) and kept at 4°C for 24–48 hours for fixation. Then, the slices were washed with PBS and incubated in a blocking/permeabilization buffer (PBS containing 3% BSA and 0.3% Triton X-100) at room temperature for 2 hours. Subsequently, the slices were incubated overnight at room temperature with Streptavidin Texas Red (diluted 1:500, Vector Laboratories; SA-5006). Finally, the sections were washed again and mounted using a Vectashield Vibrance curing antifade mounting medium (Vector Laboratories; H-1800). Photomicrographs were acquired using confocal microscopy (LSM 800 with Airyscan; Carl Zeiss) [28]. The excitation wavelength for Texas Red was 561 nm. Multiple tile z-stack series were captured from each cell and reconstructed using Zen 2.3 (Carl Zeiss) and ImageJ (NIH Image) software.

Dendritic arborization was quantified in four neurons that exhibited staining in the somatic region and dendritic arborizations. Dendrites were quantified by counting the number of total and primary dendrites, the total dendritic length, the axon extension, and the total projection area using ImageJ software coupled with the Sholl analysis plug-in v3.4.2 for morphometric analysis [29,30]. Primary neurites were defined as those that originated directly from the soma. Sholl analysis was used to determine the complexity of dendritic branching. Concentric circles were drawn every 10 μm from the soma, and the number of intersections between the increasing circles and the dendritic arbor was quantified, as well as the number of branch points and end tips. The axon’s initial segment was identified morphologically as the point at which the axon’s diameter became constant, lacking further tapering or structural specialization, and where the axon exhibited a uniform caliber and trajectory without visible varicosities or branching, as previously reported [17,31].

Data analysis

During the experimental procedures, the experimenters were blinded to both the tissue brain region of origin and the patients’ clinical variables. All data are numerically expressed as mean ± SD unless otherwise stated. The normality of the data was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, which is suitable for small sample sizes (n > 3). No outliers were removed from the data. The group size per cortex type is expressed as the number of cells or slices obtained from n patients. The comparability among experimental conditions was assessed by a ratio-paired Student’s t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), or mixed-effects ANOVA, as appropriate. In the mixed-effects ANOVA, we analyzed cortex type and current injection as between-subjects and within-subjects factors, respectively. Tukey’s post hoc test was computed for multiple comparisons among experimental groups only when F achieved minimal statistical significance. For all the experiments, data were considered significant if p < 0.05.

Results

Identification of neocortical pyramidal cells by firing pattern from patients with drug-resistant epilepsy

We recorded 34 PCs in acute slices of the human neocortex (Fig 1A) using the whole-cell patch-clamp configuration; the intracellular solution routinely included biocytin for intracellular labeling. The tissue was surgically resected from 10 patients with DRE ranging from 2 to 30 years old of both sexes (Fig 1B, upper panel and Table 1). The average time between the surgical resection, brain slice preparation, and slice placement in the recording chambers was 3 ± 0.5 h. According to its origin, the tissue was obtained from the temporal, parietal, and frontal neocortices (Figs 1A and 1B, middle panel).

Fig 1. Layer V pyramidal cell types from the human neocortex with drug-resistant epilepsy.

Fig 1

(A) Schematic representation showing the cortical sections used for this study. Layer (L). Acute cortical slices were prepared from temporal, parietal, and frontal cortices resected from drug-resistant epileptic brains. (B) Pie charts with the percentual distribution of the examined brain tissue (n = 10 patients) by sex (top panel), cortex type (middle panel), and neuronal firing type (lower panel, n = 34 cells). (C) Schematic representation for the whole-cell patch clamp and extracellular recordings in PCs of human cortical slices. The patch pipette was placed in Layer V PCs for whole-cell recordings. For extracellular recordings, the stimulation electrode was placed in the superficial Layers I/II, and synaptic responses were recorded in the deep Layer V. (D) Representative examples of whole-cell recordings showing the firing patterns recorded from PCs. The upper left panel shows a RS neuron or IT-2; the middle panel shows an intrinsic bursting neuron or ET neuron, and the lower panel shows the adaptive firing neuron or IT-1 neuron. A common characteristic of the neurons in this study was their low spontaneous synaptic activity at each neuron’s resting membrane potential (as indicated by the calibration bar). (E) Firing rate of IT-2 and ET neurons in response to increasing current injections. The inset compares the gain between groups. (F) Comparison of instantaneous frequency in IT-2 and ET neurons, *** p < 0.001, unpaired t-test. (G) A representative scatter graph of the latency of the second spike of each pair (ms) vs. inter-spike interval (ISI, ms). Note the spare adaptation of IT-2 neurons compared to ET neurons. The inset shows higher slope values in ET neurons than in IT-2 neurons, **p < 0.01, unpaired t-test. (H) Dot plot with error bars showing the differences in input resistance between IT-2 and ET neurons, p ** < 0.01, unpaired t-test. (I) Representative voltage traces evoked by −300 pA (1 s) exemplifying the estimation of sag ratio in IT-2 (black trace) and ET (green trace) neurons. (J) IT-2 and ET neurons did not show differences in sag ratio. n = 22 cells/ 10 samples of 10 patients for IT-2 neurons and n = 10 cells/ 4 samples of 10 patients.

The somata of PCs were positioned in the middle region of Layer V of the neocortex (Fig 1C), 50–150 µm below the slice surface. Under DIC microscopy, the PC somata size was 22.2 ± 4.3 µm, and was visibly different from local interneurons that exhibited smaller, rounded, or bifurcated somata. Strictly pyramidal cell-like morphology, including a broad base, a pointed apex, and the protrusion of at least one major dendritic branch pointing towards the cortex-pia, was an inclusion criterion for patch-clamp recordings. Following the initial membrane break-in from giga-seal to whole-cell configuration, we switched to the current-clamp mode, and SSA was monitored at the RMP of the recorded cells. Since the tissue was obtained from epileptic individuals, the SSA was a parameter routinely used to identify possible hyperexcitable cells. However, PCs in this study showed sparse SSA at their RMP (right insets, Fig 1D).

In the human neocortex, Layer V PCs are classified as either extratelencephalic (ET) neurons or intratelencephalic (IT, types 1 and 2) neurons based on their transcriptomic and electrophysiological profiles [24]. Therefore, we first classified the PCs according to their firing pattern (Fig 1D). Independent of the origin of the epileptic tissue, we found that 22 (64.71%, n = 22 cells/ 10 samples of 10 patients) PCs exhibited a RS firing pattern phenotype, which corresponds to IT-2 neurons. The IT-2 neurons are characterized by stable AP firing, weak AP adaptation, and stable AP amplitude. The other 10 (29.41%, n = 10 cells/ 4 samples of 10 patients) PCs exhibited an intrinsic bursting firing pattern, which corresponds to ET neurons, and are characterized by clustered spikes (2–3) observed during depolarizing plateau potentials and followed by quiescent periods. The remaining 2 (5.88%, n = 2 cells/ 2 samples of 10 patients) PCs exhibited adaptive firing, consistent with the IT-1 neurons, characterized by a single AP followed by a defined afterhyperpolarization, and strong spike adaptation was recorded (Fig 1D, lower panel). Since the cells in this study did not exhibit SSA, we assumed that the firing patterns were intrinsically regulated and not derived from synaptic activity impinging on the recorded PCs, as summarized in the voltage traces and the accompanying SSA in Fig 1D.

To corroborate the neuronal identity of PCs as ET (n = 10 cells/ 4 patients) or IT-2 (n = 22 cells/ 10 patients) neurons, we compared electrophysiological properties that distinguish these neuronal populations [24], which were more abundant in our study. The corresponding measurements for IT-1 neurons are provided in the supplementary information. First, we compared firing rates in response to increasing current injections (0–390 pA, 30 pA steps). However, no significant differences were observed in the firing rate curves between IT-2 and ET neurons (maximal firing rate in IT-2 neurons = 23 ± 7.86 Hz, in ET neurons = 21 ± 7.72 Hz, unpaired t-test t(30) = 0.97, p = 0.34; Fig 1E), and similarly, no differences were observed in neuronal gain (gain in IT-2 neurons = 0.089 ± 0.04 Hz.pA-1, in ET neurons = 0.07 ± 0.05 Hz.pA-1, unpaired t-test t(30) = 1.128, p = 0.268; inset in Fig 1E). However, as expected, ET neurons exhibited a considerably higher instantaneous frequency firing compared to IT-2 (IFF in ET neurons = 99.62 ± 26.94 Hz; in IT-2 neurons = 44.1 26.96 Hz, unpaired t-test t(30) = 5.849, p > 0.001).

Next, to corroborate differences in the output patterns of these neuronal populations, we analyzed spike adaptation during current injection (210 pA, 1 s; Fig 1G), a phenomenon in which the ISI gradually increases over time in response to a continuous current stimulus [25]. According to this analysis, the IT-2 neurons showed significantly lower slope values than ET neurons, corroborating their spare adaptive nature (slope in IT-2 neurons = 0.031 ± 0.028, in ET neurons = 0.104 ± 0.09, unpaired t-test t(30) =3.552, p = 0.0013; inset Fig 1G).

Given that ET and IT-2 neurons also exhibit differences in the input resistance and functional expression of HCN channels [16,24], we examined whether these differences were present in these neuronal populations. As expected, IT-2 neurons showed higher input resistance values than ET neurons (input resistance in IT-2 neurons = 160.9 ± 37.77 MΩ, in ET neurons = 122 ± 24.1 MΩ, unpaired t-test t(30) = 2.976, p = 0.005; Fig 1H). However, when comparing the sag ratio (see Fig 1H), which is a typical indirect measurement of HCN channel function, no significant differences were found between these populations (sag ratio in IT-2 neurons = 0.141 ± 0.072, in ET neurons = 0.164 ± 0.063, unpaired t-test t(30) =0.863, p = 0.394; Fig 1J). Together, these results indicate that IT-2 neurons and ET neurons from patients with drug-resistant epilepsy can be distinguished by their firing patterns and electrophysiological properties, such as instantaneous firing frequency, spike adaptation, and input resistance.

Layer V pyramidal cells in the frontal neocortex exhibit higher firing rates relative to temporal and parietal neurons of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy

Our previous results show that ≈65% of recorded neurons belong to the IT-2 class, characterized by the RS phenotype. Therefore, we contrasted I-T2 neurons’ passive and active electrophysiological properties by neocortex types, such as RMP, RN, and τ. Fig 2A shows a representative neuron filled with biocytin, and Fig 2B1–B3 shows representative I–V curves from the different neocortices with the characteristic RS phenotype. Fig 2C summarizes the values of RMP between the three different neocortices (RMP in temporal neurons = −72.3 ± 3.3 mV, n = 6 cells/3 patients; in parietal neurons = −73.4 ± 1.94 mV, n = 5 cells/3 patients; in frontal neurons = −73.13 ± 4.1 mV, n = 11 cells/4 patients). No statistical difference between groups was found in RMP. Next, we compared RN and τ. However, neither RN nor τ exhibited significant differences between neuronal groups (RN in temporal neurons = 164.9 ± 43.65 MΩ; in parietal neurons = 163.9 ± 56.52 MΩ; in frontal neurons = 157.3 ± 27.15 MΩ; Fig 2D; τ in temporal neurons = 26.64 ± 8.93 ms; in parietal neurons = 32.7 ± 4.66 ms; in frontal neurons = 31.91 ± 5.92 ms; Fig 2E). We also determined the membrane capacitance of cells from the different cortices. However, we did not find differences between groups (membrane capacitance in temporal neurons = 166.4 ± 57.37 pF; in parietal neurons = 200.7 ± 24.71 pF; in frontal neurons = 214.5 ± 85.23 pF), suggesting that Layer V PCs across cortical regions in epileptic tissue have similar neuronal surfaces.

Fig 2. Passive membrane properties and neuronal firing in IT-2 neurons from temporal, parietal, and frontal cortices of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy.

Fig 2

(A) A typical PC filled with biocytin from the Layer V temporal cortex. WM = white matter. (B1–B3) Representative voltage traces of RS PCs of the temporal cortex (B1, n = 6 cells/3 patients), parietal cortex (B2, n = 5 cells/3 patients), and frontal cortex (B3, n = 11 cells/4 patients). The I–V curves were elicited with current injections from −300 pA to 60 pA (30 pA steps). The horizontal dashed line represents the AP overshot. Passive and active parameters obtained from RS neurons: the dot plots with error bars contrast (C) the resting membrane potential (RMP), (D) the somatic input resistance (RN), and (E) the membrane time constant (τ) between PCs of the different cortices. (F) Dot plot with error bars summarizing the rheobase current required to elicit one AP by injecting a depolarizing current ramp, as illustrated in Fig 2G. Values for each neuronal group. * p < 0.05, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. (G) In the left panel, neuronal firing in PCs in response to a depolarizing current ramp injection. The membrane potential was set at −70 mV. In the right panel, the violin plot shows the AP latency (in ms) elicited with rheobase current. (H) Representative firing traces from temporal (red), parietal (black), and frontal (blue) cortices to depolarizing current steps (1 s). (I) Line graph with frequency rate (Hz) – current of the different cortical neurons. Notice that PCs from the frontal cortex exhibited a higher frequency rate than temporal and parietal neurons. *** p < 0.001, mixed-effects ANOVA, cortex type effect followed by Tukey’s test. Similarly, the comparison of neuronal gain (Hz pA-1), calculated as the slope of the linear portion (90–210 pA) of the frequency rate-current curve, corroborated higher excitability in frontal neurons (Fig 2I, dot plot with error bars inset). * p < 0.05, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. (J1) Expanded AP traces elicited with rheobase current by cortex type and its representation as a phase plot (left panel in J2). The phase plots were constructed by plotting the membrane voltage (mV) vs. its first derivative (mV/ms). Firing threshold at rheobase by cortical region (right panel in J2), showing that frontal neurons exhibit a lower threshold than temporal neurons. * p < 0.05, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test.

Next, we applied a depolarizing current ramp and determined the rheobase and the latency to elicit an AP in IT-2 neurons from the distinct neocortex. Temporal and parietal IT-2 neurons did not show differences (Fig 1F, left and middle panels); however, frontal IT-2 neurons required lower current values to elicit an AP (rheobase in temporal neurons = 166 ± 85.45 pA; in parietal neurons = 101 ± 72.31 pA; in frontal neurons = 65.9 ± 33.1 pA; one-way ANOVA: F(2, 19) = 5.405, Tukey’s test, p < 0.05; Fig 2F, right panel). On the other hand, we did not detect differences in latency to the AP at the rheobase current between groups (latency in temporal neurons = 416 ± 42.23 ms; in parietal neurons = 385 ± 84 ms; in frontal neurons = 416.6 ± 75.37 ms; Fig 2G).

Next, we compared the firing rate of IT-2 neurons in response to increasing current injection (0–390 pA). The analysis revealed that the maximal firing rates were similar for parietal and temporal neurons (18.2 ± 4.57 Hz vs. 18.4 ± 3.97 Hz, respectively; see black and blue traces, Fig 2H). In sharp contrast, IT-2 neurons from the frontal neocortex exhibited a higher firing rate, reaching a maximal value of 28.82 ± 7.87 Hz (mixed-effects ANOVA, neocortex type effect: F(2, 19) = 5.598, followed by Tukey’s test, p < 0.001 in frontal neurons vs. temporal and parietal neurons; Fig 2H–I). Consistent with these findings, when computing the neuronal gain, we corroborated the higher firing frequency of IT-2 neurons from the frontal neocortex compared with the temporal and parietal neocortex (neuronal gain in temporal neurons = 0.062 ± 0.037 Hz.pA-1, in parietal neurons = 0.067 ± 0.01 Hz.pA-1, in frontal neurons = 0.114 ± 0.035 Hz.pA-1; one-way ANOVA, F(2, 19) = 6.433, followed by Tukey’s test, p < 0.05; inset in Fig 2I).

Lastly, we examined the kinetic parameters of the AP waveform elicited at rheobase (Figs 2G and J1), including MDS, MRS, H-W, and firing threshold. Frontal IT-2 neurons exhibited higher MDS values compared with temporal and parietal neurons (MDS in temporal neurons = 179 ± 34.92 mV/ms; in parietal neurons = 184.3 ± 28.1 mV/ms; in frontal neurons = 247.2 ± 23.77 mV/ms; one-way ANOVA: F(2, 19) = 15.07, followed by Tukey’s test, p < 0.05 in frontal vs. temporal and parietal PCs), suggesting higher global Na+ conductances in frontal PCs. By contrast, the comparison of the MRS, which reflects the activity of outward K+ conductances mediating the fast repolarization of the AP, showed no statistical differences between the neurons from the different neocortex (MRS in temporal neurons = −83.9 ± 37.1 mV/ms; in parietal neurons = −48.2 ± 1.96 mV/ms; in frontal neurons = −77.5 ± 27.47 mV/ms). Likewise, when comparing the H-W values between groups revealed that parietal IT-2 neurons exhibit increased H-W values compared to temporal and frontal PCs (H-W in temporal neurons = 1.7 ± 0.69 ms; in parietal neurons = 2.7 ± 0.75 ms; in frontal neurons = 1.8 ± 0.49 ms; one-way ANOVA: F(2, 19) = 4.796, followed by Tukey’s test, p < 0.05 in parietal vs. temporal and frontal PCs). Consistent with their lower rheobase and the absence of differences in intrinsic membrane properties, frontal IT-2 neurons exhibited a lower firing threshold compared to temporal neurons (threshold in frontal: −42.38 ± 5.81 mV; temporal: −32.52 ± 7.61 mV; parietal: −41.12 ± 3.11 mV; one-way ANOVA, F(2, 19) = 5.659, followed by Tukey’s test, p < 0.05; right panel in Fig 2J2). Additionally, a subset of recorded IT-2 neurons (n = 4 of 22) was reconstructed and analyzed, revealing morphological characteristics of Layer V pyramidal neurons (see Fig 5).

Fig 5. Morphological analysis of Layer V IT-2 neurons.

Fig 5

(A) Immunofluorescence photomicrographs of PCs filled with biocytin via the patch pipette. The composite images are averages of at least 40 Z-stacks. Inset, firing response of the labeled neurons. (B) Projection area of the reconstructed neurons. Dendritic arborizations are shown in black, axon in blue. (C) Scatter plot of the total number of dendrites for each cell. (D) Scatter plot summarizing the length of the primary dendrite of the four reconstructed cells. (E) Sholl projections of the four reconstructed neurons. (F) Scatter plot summarizing the number of branch points of each neuron. The inset represents the average from the four reconstructed cells.

Kinetic properties of neocortical fEPSPs and synaptic coupling in drug-resistant Epilepsy

In parallel with the patch-clamp experiments, we also performed extracellular recordings in independent slices obtained from the same patients’ brain samples to explore the synaptic properties of human neocortex. A stimulation electrode was placed in Layers I/II, and the evoked response was recorded in Layer Va (Fig 1C). Parameters of the fEPSP, including amplitude, peak latency, and H-W, were analyzed (Fig 3A). The panels in Fig 3B1–B3 show representative fEPSPs of the temporal, parietal, and frontal neocortex. In the temporal neocortex (n = 8 slices/3 patients), the fEPSP was significantly larger compared with the parietal (n = 8 slices/3 patients) and frontal (n = 8 slices/4 patients) neocortical responses (fEPSP amplitude in temporal neocortex = 0.96 ± 0.1 mV; in parietal neocortex = 0.6 ± 0.2 mV; in frontal neocortex = 0.63 ± 0.2 mV; one-way ANOVA: F(2, 21) = 9.767, Tukey’s test, p < 0.01 in temporal vs. parietal and frontal neocortex; Fig 3C). However, neither the peak latency nor the H-W of the fEPSPs was different between groups (peak latency in temporal neocortex = 1.67 ± 0.4 ms; in parietal neocortex = 1.75 ± 0.64 ms; in frontal neocortex = 2.06 ± 0.64 ms; Fig 3D; fEPSP H-W in temporal neocortex = 2.1 ± 0.7 ms; in parietal neocortex = 1.82 ± 0.47 ms; in frontal neocortex = 1.94 ± 0.64 ms; Fig 3E).

Fig 3. Kinetic profile of Layer V cortical fEPSPs in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy.

Fig 3

(A) The upper panel is a sequence of 10 consecutive fEPSPs recorded in Layer Va of the cortex in response to electrical stimulation in Layer I/II (see schematic representation in Fig 1C). The individual traces are shown in gray, and the averaged response is in black. The lower panel shows the kinetic parameters derived from the fEPSP waveforms, including fEPSP amplitude (mV), peak latency (ms), and fEPSP half-width (HW, ms). (B) Representative fEPSP traces from (B1) temporal, (B2) parietal, and (B3) frontal neocortex. Each trace was averaged from five continuous sweeps acquired at 0.067 Hz. The arrowhead preceding the fEPSP is the presynaptic fiber volley. In the lower panel, a dot plot with error bars summarizes the kinetic parameters of (C) the fEPSP amplitude, (D) peak latency, and (E) fEPSP H-W, obtained from the three cortices. Notice that fEPSP amplitudes from parietal and frontal slices are smaller compared to temporal slices. n = 8 slices/3 patients for temporal and parietal slices; n = 8 slices/4 patients for frontal slices. **p < 0.01, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. (F1–F3) Scatter plot showing the individual relationship between presynaptic fiber volley vs. actual fEPSP amplitude from the three cortical areas and the resulting Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Each dot within the plot represents an actual sweep that included FV and fEPSP. (F4) Scatter plot showing the same relationship in rodents. Notice the differences in Pearson’s r2 coefficient between DRE and control responses. (G1–G3) Scatter plots showing the theoretical consistency and proportionality of the predicted FV vs. fEPSP response for each cortical area according to the least square methods. Under theoretical conditions, cortical responses should be linearly correlated, as occurs in the (G4) scatter plot of control responses acquired from rodent brain.

During the acquisition of fEPSPs, both the FV (or presynaptic action potentials) amplitudes and the corresponding fEPSPs exhibited trial-to-trial variability (i.e., small FVs and larger fEPSPs or vice versa), despite constant current intensity and stimulation frequency (0.067 Hz). Under physiological conditions, the FV–fEPSP relationship is typically linear and represents a classical measure of synaptic coupling between input and output in neuronal microcircuits, whereas pathological conditions alter this relationship [32,33].

To quantify the relationship between presynaptic excitability and postsynaptic response in cortical slices, we first calculated Pearson’s r2 values between individual FV amplitudes and their corresponding fEPSP slopes for each cortical region (Fig 3F1–F3). The resulting coefficients of determination were relatively low, suggesting a disrupted input-output coupling: temporal cortex r2 = 0.438; parietal cortex r2 = 0.073; frontal cortex r2 = 0.289. For comparative purposes, data from control rodent slices (n = 5 slices/3 animals; see additional information) showed a strong correlation (r2 = 0.925; Fig 3F4), consistent with a normal synaptic coupling.

To further characterize the strength of this synaptic coupling, we next performed linear regression analyses of FV and fEPSP slopes using the least-squares method and compared the resulting regression slopes across cortical regions and the control group. The resulting slope magnitude is generally proportional to synaptic coupling efficiency [32–34]. The regression slopes (mean ± SD) were as follows: temporal cortex = 2.88 ± 21.35; parietal cortex = 0.815 ± 27.82; frontal cortex = 1.83 ± 15.33; and control (rodent) group = 5.29 ± 5.68. A t-test revealed that the cortical slopes differed significantly from the control group, supporting the idea of reduced synaptic coupling across cortical regions in patients with DRE.

On the other hand, the linear fits obtained by least-squares analysis showed a strong correlation between FV and fEPSP responses within each cortical region, with slopes indicating partial recovery relative to the control group. As illustrated in Fig 3G1–G3, the coefficients of determination (r2) were remarkably high across all areas: temporal cortex (r2 = 0.9541), parietal cortex (r2 = 0.9745), and frontal cortex (r2 = 1.0). Similarly, the regression slopes were relatively consistent: temporal cortex (m = 4.1), parietal cortex (m = 3.8), frontal cortex (m = 3.8), and control group (m = 5.0). This combination of strong linear correlation and slope recovery suggests that, although the FV–fEPSP relationship may become decoupled under pathological conditions, its fundamental structure remains resilient, a pattern consistent with that observed under basal conditions.

Neocortical synapses from patients with drug-resistant epilepsy do not exhibit short-term depression

A distinctive property of the neocortical excitatory synapses of rodents is their low probability of neurotransmitter release [35], a phenomenon that governs glutamatergic transmission’s PPR. However, PPR has been barely explored in human neocortical synapses. Therefore, the next series of experiments aimed to determine the PPR of the glutamatergic transmission at the Layer I/II – V synapses using an inter-stimulus interval of 60 ms. Figs 4A and 4B show the mild or spare PPR facilitation (PPF) found in the three neocortical areas. In the temporal neocortex, the PPR was 1.03 ± 0.15 (n = 6 slices/3 patients), while in the parietal and frontal neocortex, the PPR was 1.07 ± 0.47 (n = 7 slices/3 patients) and 1.15 ± 0.64 (n = 7 slices/4 patients), respectively (Fig 4B).

Fig 4. Layer I/II – V cortical synapses from patients with drug-resistant epilepsy lack frequency-dependent short-term depression.

Fig 4

(A) Representative traces of paired stimulation (60 ms) from the temporal, parietal, and frontal neocortex. (B) Dot plot with error bars contrasting the paired-pulse ratio (PPR) between cortical groups. On average, the PPR showed spare facilitation in each cortical synapse. n = 6 slices/3 patients for the temporal slices; n = 7 slices/3 patients for the parietal slices; n = 7 slices/4 patients for frontal slices. (C) Representative traces of evoked fEPSPs in response to a train of 10 pulses elicited at 30 Hz in the temporal, parietal, and frontal cortices. The horizontal dashed line represents the facilitation level. Note the appearance of spontaneous postsynaptic potentials during the train stimulation (indicated by arrows). (D) Line plot of each evoked synaptic response recorded in Layer V during the stimulation trains delivered in Layer I/II at 30 Hz. At the individual level, the recorded trains exhibited both synaptic depression and facilitation, and the average response was biased toward synaptic facilitation (bold orange line, inset panel D). When sorting the slices by cortex type, temporal synapses showed synaptic facilitation, whereas parietal and frontal synapses did not. (E) The bar and line graphs show that only temporal synapses exhibited a significant facilitation level (fEPSP slope % of S10 vs. S1). *p < 0.05, ratio-paired t-test. n = 3 slices/3 patients for temporal and parietal slices; n = 4 slices/3 patients for parietal slices. (F) Dot plot with error bars summarizing the number of spontaneous postsynaptic potentials recorded during 30 Hz train stimulation across different neocortical regions. A significantly higher number of events was observed in temporal slices than in parietal slices. *p < 0.05, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post hoc test. (G) Pearson´s correlation analysis between the number of spontaneous postsynaptic potentials and the magnitude of the tenth synaptic response during 30 Hz train stimulation.

According to previous studies, repetitive synaptic stimulation within the gamma-range triggers short-term depression (STD) in rodent and human neocortices [15,35,36]. Therefore, we examined the epileptic neocortex’s response to trains of ten stimuli (S) at 30 Hz. To avoid synaptic saturation during the experimental trials, we set the applied current intensity to evoke ≈50% of the maximal fEPSP amplitude in each slice [26]. These responses tended to exhibit a dominant synaptic facilitation that was independent of the neocortex type (fEPSPs10/fEPSPs1= 127.6 ± 45.54% of S1, paired t-test t(9) = 1.198, p = 0.087; inset Fig 4D). When distinguished by neocortical area (Fig 4D), the temporal neocortex exhibited sustained facilitation in response to a 30 Hz train (red line), whereas the parietal and frontal neocortex showed unfacilitated or mildly facilitated responses, respectively (black and blue lines). However, the temporal neocortex was the only region with a significant synaptic facilitation in response to 30 Hz train (fEPSPs10/fEPSPs1 in temporal neocortex = 162.7 ± 28.87% of S1; ratio-paired t-test, t(2) = 4.48, p = 0.045; in parietal neocortex = 99.14 ± 29.41% of S1, ratio-paired t-test, p = 0.814; in frontal neocortex = 130.6 ± 61% of S1, paired t-test, p = 0.669; Fig 4E).

Additionally, we observed that during train stimulation, spontaneous postsynaptic potentials emerged following evoked synaptic responses, with latencies exceeding 10 ms (see arrows in Fig 4C). While the number of spontaneous postsynaptic potentials was significantly higher in temporal neocortex slices compared to parietal slices, no statistically significant difference was found when compared to frontal neocortex slices (events in temporal cortex: 9 ± 2.65; in frontal cortex: 6.67 ± 3.21; in parietal cortex: 2.75 ± 0.96; one-way ANOVA, F(2,7) =0.446, Tukey´s post-hoc test, p < 0.05 in temporal vs. parietal cortex; Fig 4F). Interestingly, we found a strong positive correlation between the number of spontaneous postsynaptic potentials and the magnitude of the last synaptic response during the 30 Hz train (Pearson correlation, r2 = 0.871; Fig 4G). These data suggest that frequency-dependent synaptic facilitation or the lack of STD in epileptic neocortex favors excitatory synaptic activity.

Morphometric analysis of Layer V pyramidal cells

Because the patch pipettes contained biocytin (see methods), post hoc analyses were used to examine dendritic organization. The analysis was limited to four IT-2 neurons obtained from the parietal and frontal neocortex. The cells exhibited similar morphometric and electrophysiological properties (Fig 5A–B). Seven additional PCs exhibited sparse biocytin labeling, restricted to the somata or random sections of the dendritic ramifications. These cells were discarded.

The axon’s initial segment was visually identified for all the reconstructed cells. The axon stemmed from the soma base and had a thin appearance with a mean extension of 54.05 ± 30.82 μm (blue traces in Fig 5B). Next, the total number of dendrites and their total length were comparable across cells (Fig 5C; see also Table 2). Likewise, the number and the primary dendritic length exhibited similar values (Figs 5D; Table 2). Furthermore, despite variations in dendritic distribution among cells, their surface areas were similar (projection area for cell 1 = 287.26 μm2; for cell 2 = 336.43 μm2; for cell 3 = 408.71 μm2; for cell 4 = 307.59 μm2). Next, the dendritic tree branching patterns and complexity were evaluated with a Sholl analysis (Figs 5E and 5F). The quantification of branching points showed no statistical differences between cells (Fig 5F; Table 2), and similar results were observed for branching end tips (Table 2).

Table 2. Morphological measurements and Sholl Analysis of Layer V pyramidal cells from patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. The dendritic measurements were performed in four RS PCs obtained from the parietal and frontal neocortices.

Morphological measurements
# Cell number of total dendrites total length of
the dendrites
number of total primary dendrites primary dendritic length
Cell 01 Parietal 51 107.9 ± 100.7 μm 6 28.35 ± 7.54 μm
Cell 02 Parietal 77 129.7 ± 90.26 μm 14 126.6 ± 119.1 μm
Cell 03 Frontal 37 130.4 ± 93.64 μm 6 27 ± 7.28 μm
Cell 04 Frontal 46 122.7 ± 15.39 μm 13 65.36 ± 38.51 μm
Sholl Analysis
# Cell Number of branching points Branching end tips
Cell 01 Parietal 1.49 ± 0.90 33
Cell 02 Parietal 1.41 ± 0.95 49
Cell 03 Frontal 1.40 ± 0.86 26
Cell 04 Frontal 1.10 ± 0.56 30

Discussion

This study summarizes a series of intrinsic and synaptic properties of Layer V PCs from three neocortical regions surgically resected from patients with DRE. At the cellular level, we used patch-clamp recordings to classify PCs as IT-2 or ET neurons based on their firing patterns and to determine subthreshold and suprathreshold membrane properties. At the circuit level, extracellular recordings were used to evaluate synaptic strength, coupling between presynaptic volleys and excitatory postsynaptic potentials, and frequency-dependent short-term plasticity within the gamma-range. Significantly, PCs from deep cortical layers, such as Layer V, have been identified as a major source of epileptiform discharges in both animal models and human patients [19,21].

Electrophysiological differences between IT-2 and ET neurons

In this study, we identified two main neuronal populations in the human neocortex: IT-2 and ET neurons. Although these populations can be reliably distinguished by their spiking patterns [24,37,38]—regular spiking for IT-2 neurons and bursting for ET neurons—we also observed other well-recognized electrophysiological features that differentiate these neuronal types, including spike adaptation, instantaneous firing frequency, and input resistance [24]. Interestingly, previous studies have shown that ET neurons display a larger sag ratio than IT-2 neurons [24], a difference explained by their higher expression of HCN channels [39]. However, in our study, we did not observe differences in sag ratio between IT-2 and ET neurons from patients with DRE, suggesting that a possible downregulation in the functional expression of HCN channels, at least in ET neurons, may explain this finding. In support of this idea, Layer II/III pyramidal neurons from human epileptic neocortex shows a reduced Ih mediated by HCN channels [40].

Another striking finding was the apparently higher input resistance in both IT-2 and ET neurons compared previous works [24], despite the maintained proportional difference between the two populations. While these differences could be attributed to methodological differences such as composition of cutting solution (NMDG-based vs. sucrose-based), as recently discussed [41], the higher input resistance observed in our study may reflect an intrinsic feature related to pathological nature of the tissue examined. For instance, Kalmbach et al. used tissue considered non-pathological by use tissue obtained from distant from epileptic or tumoral zones, we used pathological tissue directly obtained from epileptic foci. In addition, consistent with the possible functional downregulation of HCN channels mentioned previously, blockade of HCN channels in human cortical neurons has been shown to significantly increase input resistance and hyperpolarize the RMP [42]. Therefore, theoretically, a reduced functional expression of HCN channels may explain the higher input resistance and hyperpolarized RMP observed in our study. While we cannot rule out a possible contribution from dendritic damage during the slicing process to measurements such as input resistance [16], our results, together with previous evidence, point to a potential dysregulation of HCN channels in influencing intrinsic membrane properties under pathological conditions such as epilepsy.

Membrane properties of IT-2 neurons

Despite extensive knowledge of the neuronal physiology of rodent neurons, our understanding of the human neocortex’s intrinsic electrophysiological properties is still limited. Moreover, a recent study showed that intrinsic properties, such as somatic RN, rheobase current to evoke an AP, HCN channel-mediated currents, and PC firing, differ between rodent and human neocortices [16].

Given the inherent challenge of obtaining healthy human brain tissue for comparative analysis [11], in most studies, tissue resected from areas away from epileptic zones or deep brain tumors is regarded as ‘normal’ or ‘moderately less affected’ by neuropathologists [16,43]. The neurons examined in our study exhibited hyperpolarized RMP, minimal SSA, and firing outputs resembling those observed in rodent and human neocortices under normal or near-physiological conditions [16,44,45]. However, the homogeneity of the passive property measurements with the patch-clamp recordings suggests that a subset of ion channels active near the RMP of these cells did not experience significant changes, thereby maintaining the ionic distribution across the cellular membrane. Nevertheless, the higher excitability observed in frontal IT-2 neurons compared to parietal and temporal neurons may be explained by differences in the biophysical properties of rapidly activating Na⁺ channels rather than by changes in passive properties. For instance, while our measurements of MDS, also referred to as the rise speed of the AP [14], suggest a higher global Na⁺ conductance in frontal neurons, this measurement may also be influenced by biophysical properties of Na⁺ channels such as voltage dependence, conductance density (i.e., number of channels), maximal conductance [14], and the subunit composition of the channels [46]. Despite these considerations, previous studies in mice and macaques have reported regional differences in the properties of AP and the firing frequency of Layer V pyramidal neurons [39,47]. Therefore, the observed regional differences in excitability may reflect the functional specialization of each cortical region (e.g., executive functions in the frontal cortex or sensory processing in the parietal lobe).

Another important consideration is that electrophysiological measurements may vary across life stages [48]. For instance, the RMP in Layer II/III PCs from non-epileptic tissue becomes more hyperpolarized from childhood to early adulthood (mean: –65 mV vs. –69 mV). In our study, despite age differences between the examined cortices (2–7 years, childhood, for the parietal cortex; 21–30 years, early adulthood, for the temporal and frontal cortices), the RMP was predominantly more hyperpolarized (–72 to –73 mV) than in cortical neurons from non-epileptic tissue [22,48]. These observations support the idea that a more hyperpolarized RMP may be an underlying feature of epileptic tissue. However, it is worth noting that other factors, such as series resistance and liquid junction potential, can also influence RMP measurements.

Changes in the synaptic transmission and short-term plasticity of the neocortical synapses

Within neocortical synaptic networks, the postsynaptic firing is influenced, among other factors, by the dynamics of presynaptic release and the short-term plasticity of synaptic transmission [36,49]. Consistent with findings in the rodent neocortex, frequency-dependent STD modulates information transfer efficiency among human PCs across neocortical layers under near-physiological conditions [15]. Likewise, STD balances neocortical activity during prolonged synaptic stimulation [36], positing that frequency-dependent STD is a key cellular mechanism for regulating the propagation of electrical activity across neocortical layers. With that in mind, our extracellular recordings uncovered a lack of synaptic depression in response to gamma-range stimulation of the superficial neocortical Layers I/II, compared to previous observations [15]; even moderate synaptic facilitation was observed in the temporal neocortex (Fig 4C–D). Consequently, the gain of frequency-dependent synaptic facilitation, rather than synaptic depression [15,35], may represent a potential mechanism that favors network hyperexcitability during seizure activity by amplifying neuronal activity (e.g., summation of fEPSPs during high-frequency activity). This possibility arises from the observation that synaptic facilitation during spike activity transiently increases the probability of neurotransmitter release, thereby enhancing postsynaptic excitatory conductances [50].

Moreover, we observed that the frequency-dependent synaptic facilitation was highly correlated with higher spontaneous postsynaptic potentials. The appearance of spontaneous postsynaptic potentials during 30 Hz train stimulation is striking, and it may be interpreted as a consequence of a transient increase in excitatory activity during brief high-frequency stimulation, as previously discussed. For instance, while recurrent spontaneous activity in deep Layer V of the neocortex is well documented [45], it is typically not observed during brief high-frequency stimulation under physiological conditions in rodents [35] or near-physiological conditions in humans [15]. However, given that this recurrent spontaneous activity is locally controlled by a subset of Layer V pyramidal neurons [51], the potential loss of STD in Layer I/II – V synapses, or alternatively, the emergence of synaptic facilitation (as observed in temporal cortex) during 30 Hz train stimulation, might provide the initial excitatory drive required to trigger such spontaneous activity. Although appealing, this hypothesis requires additional investigation to determine whether the lack of STD or the gain of facilitation during brief high-frequency stimulation contributes significantly to the network hyperexcitability observed in drug-resistant epilepsy.

Lastly, a potential explanation for the lack of frequency-dependent STD is decreased expression of HCN1 channels, as inactivation or blockade of these channels increases temporal summation of synaptic events and promotes epileptiform discharges [52,53]. If this is true, promoting the activity of HCN1 channels in certain types of epilepsy (but see [48]) may restore the frequency-dependent STD and, consequently, prevent or reduce the cortical spread of pathological electrical activity during seizures, as these channels preferentially regulate dendritic excitability and epileptogenesis [54,55]. It is noteworthy that, although calcium concentration strongly modulates short-term plasticity, in high-probability release synapses, an increase in calcium enhances STD, whereas a reduction favors facilitation [56–58]. In our experiments, we used 2.5 mM Ca2 ⁺ , which is a close to the range (1.3–2 mM) that has been shown to reliably elicit STD in cortical synapses from non-epileptic human tissue [15,59]. Therefore, it is unlikely that the synaptic facilitation observed in response to brief 30 Hz train stimulation can be attributed to the calcium concentration used. Nevertheless, this observation warrants corroboration by future studies.

In the human cortex, presynaptic release probability has been poorly explored, yet it is documented that Layer II/III synapses in the temporal neocortex from non-epileptic tissue exhibit paired-pulse depression [15]. This is consistent with previous studies using dual-patch-clamp recordings from PCs in the rat neocortex [36]. In this sense, we found that paired stimulation (60 ms) at all neocortical synapses did not trigger depression; contrary to the expected, a mild paired-pulse facilitation was observed. This apparent polarity shift suggests a change in the neurotransmitter release process from high to low release probability [60]. We hypothesize that reduced synaptic depression (i.e., PPF) in the temporal neocortex increases excitability during high-frequency activity, as observed during seizures. A similar phenomenon has been previously documented in murine neurons [61].

Limitations of the study

The inherent difficulty in obtaining healthy human brain tissue for comparative research is a key limitation of this study. Additional weaknesses include variations in the tissue age, limited analyses of neurotransmitter release probability, and sparse post-hoc reconstructions obtained from recorded cells. Despite these constraints, we emphasize that acute human neocortical slices, combined with whole-cell patch-clamp and extracellular recordings, offer a robust, high-resolution, cell- and circuit-level approach to understanding the neuronal physiology of human cortical neurons under pathological conditions.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that Layer V neocortical IT-2 neurons from patients with drug-resistant epilepsy are not inherently hyperexcitable at the somatic level. Instead, their firing frequency is comparable to that of unaffected human tissue [16]. At the synaptic level, however, alterations in the PPR, decoupling between presynaptic excitability and postsynaptic response, and the lack of frequency-dependent STD may contribute to the hyperexcitable state observed during seizure activity. Future studies should aim to analyze the individual contributions of cellular elements within neuronal compartments to clarify their specific roles in the hyperexcitability underlying seizure activity.

Supporting information

S1 File. Detailed information of the recorded neurons.

Individual data included in the study, organized by neuron type and experimental protocol applied. Each Excel tab contains the neurophysiological values processed for each figure in the manuscript.

(XLSX)

pone.0320711.s001.xlsx (28.5KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge R. Olvera for early exploratory experiments.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by financial funding from Conahcyt to LR (A3-S-26782); Cinvestav-IPN to EJG. Additional funding was provided by doctoral fellowships 725800 (LAM) by Conahcyt. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.McNamara JO. Emerging insights into the genesis of epilepsy. Nature. 1999;399(6738 Suppl):A15-22. doi: 10.1038/399a015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Scharfman HE. The neurobiology of epilepsy. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2007;7(4):348–54. doi: 10.1007/s11910-007-0053-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Stöber TM, Batulin D, Triesch J, Narayanan R, Jedlicka P. Degeneracy in epilepsy: multiple routes to hyperexcitable brain circuits and their repair. Commun Biol. 2023;6(1):479. doi: 10.1038/s42003-023-04823-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bernard C, Anderson A, Becker A, Poolos NP, Beck H, Johnston D. Acquired dendritic channelopathy in temporal lobe epilepsy. Science. 2004;305(5683):532–5. doi: 10.1126/science.1097065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Freiman TM, Eismann-Schweimler J, Frotscher M. Granule cell dispersion in temporal lobe epilepsy is associated with changes in dendritic orientation and spine distribution. Experimental Neurology. 2011;229(2):332–8. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2011.02.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Masala N, Pofahl M, Haubrich AN, Sameen Islam KU, Nikbakht N, Pasdarnavab M, et al. Targeting aberrant dendritic integration to treat cognitive comorbidities of epilepsy. Brain. 2022;146(6):2399–417. doi: 10.1093/brain/awac455 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tóth K, Hofer KT, Kandrács Á, Entz L, Bagó A, Erőss L, et al. Hyperexcitability of the network contributes to synchronization processes in the human epileptic neocortex. J Physiol. 2018;596(2):317–42. doi: 10.1113/JP275413 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rich S, Moradi Chameh H, Lefebvre J, Valiante TA. Loss of neuronal heterogeneity in epileptogenic human tissue impairs network resilience to sudden changes in synchrony. Cell Rep. 2022;39(8):110863. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110863 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dominguez LG, Wennberg RA, Gaetz W, Cheyne D, Snead OC III, Velazquez JLP. Enhanced synchrony in epileptiform activity? local versus distant phase synchronization in generalized seizures. J Neurosci. 2005;25(35):8077–84. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.1046-05.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Farrell JS, Nguyen Q-A, Soltesz I. Resolving the micro-macro disconnect to address core features of seizure networks. Neuron. 2019;101(6):1016–28. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.01.043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chameh HM, Falby M, Movahed M, Arbabi K, Rich S, Zhang L, et al. Distinctive biophysical features of human cell-types: insights from studies of neurosurgically resected brain tissue. Front Synaptic Neurosci. 2023;15:1250834. doi: 10.3389/fnsyn.2023.1250834 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Larkum ME, Nevian T, Sandler M, Polsky A, Schiller J. Synaptic integration in tuft dendrites of layer 5 pyramidal neurons: a new unifying principle. Science. 2009;325(5941):756–60. doi: 10.1126/science.1171958 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Shai AS, Anastassiou CA, Larkum ME, Koch C. Physiology of layer 5 pyramidal neurons in mouse primary visual cortex: coincidence detection through bursting. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015;11(3):e1004090. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wilbers R, Metodieva VD, Duverdin S, Heyer DB, Galakhova AA, Mertens EJ, et al. Human voltage-gated Na+ and K+ channel properties underlie sustained fast AP signaling. Sci Adv. 2023;9(41):eade3300. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ade3300 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Testa-Silva G, Verhoog MB, Linaro D, de Kock CPJ, Baayen JC, Meredith RM, et al. High bandwidth synaptic communication and frequency tracking in human neocortex. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(11):e1002007. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Beaulieu-Laroche L, Toloza EHS, van der Goes M-S, Lafourcade M, Barnagian D, Williams ZM, et al. Enhanced dendritic compartmentalization in human cortical neurons. Cell. 2018;175(3):643-651.e14. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.08.045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mohan H, Verhoog MB, Doreswamy KK, Eyal G, Aardse R, Lodder BN, et al. Dendritic and axonal architecture of individual pyramidal neurons across layers of adult human neocortex. Cereb Cortex. 2015;25(12):4839–53. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhv188 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ofer N, Benavides-Piccione R, DeFelipe J, Yuste R. Structural analysis of human and mouse dendritic spines reveals a morphological continuum and differences across ages and species. eNeuro. 2022;9(3):ENEURO.0039-22.2022. doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0039-22.2022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hoffman SN, Salin PA, Prince DA. Chronic neocortical epileptogenesis in vitro. J Neurophysiol. 1994;71(5):1762–73. doi: 10.1152/jn.1994.71.5.1762 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Telfeian AE, Connors BW. Layer-specific pathways for the horizontal propagation of epileptiform discharges in neocortex. Epilepsia. 1998;39(7):700–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1157.1998.tb01154.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bourdillon P, Ren L, Halgren M, Paulk AC, Salami P, Ulbert I, et al. Differential cortical layer engagement during seizure initiation and spread in humans. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):5153. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-48746-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Moradi Chameh H, Rich S, Wang L, Chen F-D, Zhang L, Carlen PL, et al. Diversity amongst human cortical pyramidal neurons revealed via their sag currents and frequency preferences. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):2497. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22741-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Planert H, Mittermaier FX, Grosser S, Fidzinski P, Schneider UC, Radbruch H, et al. Cellular and Synaptic Diversity of Layer 2-3 Pyramidal Neurons in Human Individuals. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. 2021. doi: 10.1101/2021.11.08.467668 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kalmbach BE, Hodge RD, Jorstad NL, Owen S, de Frates R, Yanny AM, et al. Signature morpho-electric, transcriptomic, and dendritic properties of human layer 5 neocortical pyramidal neurons. Neuron. 2021;109(18):2914-2927.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2021.08.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hemond P, Epstein D, Boley A, Migliore M, Ascoli GA, Jaffe DB. Distinct classes of pyramidal cells exhibit mutually exclusive firing patterns in hippocampal area CA3b. Hippocampus. 2008;18(4):411–24. doi: 10.1002/hipo.20404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Márquez LA, López Rubalcava C, Galván EJ. Postnatal hypofunction of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors alters perforant path synaptic plasticity and filtering and impairs dentate gyrus-mediated spatial discrimination. Br J Pharmacol. 2024;181(16):2701–24. doi: 10.1111/bph.16375 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cruz SL, Torres-Flores M, Galván EJ. Repeated toluene exposure alters the synaptic transmission of layer 5 medial prefrontal cortex. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2019;73:9–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ntt.2019.02.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Griego E, Segura-Villalobos D, Lamas M, Galván EJ. Maternal immune activation increases excitability via downregulation of A-type potassium channels and reduces dendritic complexity of hippocampal neurons of the offspring. Brain Behav Immun. 2022;105:67–81. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2022.07.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ferreira TA, Blackman AV, Oyrer J, Jayabal S, Chung AJ, Watt AJ, et al. Neuronal morphometry directly from bitmap images. Nat Methods. 2014;11(10):982–4. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3125 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gutierrez-Castañeda NE, Martínez-Rojas VA, Ochoa-de la Paz LD, Galván EJ. The bidirectional role of GABAA and GABAB receptors during the differentiation process of neural precursor cells of the subventricular zone. PLoS One. 2024;19(6):e0305853. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305853 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jenkins PM, Bender KJ. Axon initial segment structure and function in health and disease. Physiol Rev. 2025;105(2):765–801. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00030.2024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Barnes CA, McNaughton BL. Physiological compensation for loss of afferent synapses in rat hippocampal granule cells during senescence. J Physiol. 1980;309:473–85. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1980.sp013521 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Villanueva-Castillo C, Tecuatl C, Herrera-López G, Galván EJ. Aging-related impairments of hippocampal mossy fibers synapses on CA3 pyramidal cells. Neurobiol Aging. 2017;49:119–37. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.09.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kay Y, Herring BE. An optogenetic method for investigating presynaptic molecular regulation. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):11329. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-90244-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Crabtree GW, Sun Z, Kvajo M, Broek JAC, Fénelon K, McKellar H, et al. Alteration of neuronal excitability and short-term synaptic plasticity in the prefrontal cortex of a mouse model of mental illness. J Neurosci. 2017;37(15):4158–80. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4345-15.2017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Galarreta M, Hestrin S. Frequency-dependent synaptic depression and the balance of excitation and inhibition in the neocortex. Nat Neurosci. 1998;1(7):587–94. doi: 10.1038/2822 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hattox AM, Nelson SB. Layer V neurons in mouse cortex projecting to different targets have distinct physiological properties. J Neurophysiol. 2007;98(6):3330–40. doi: 10.1152/jn.00397.2007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kim EJ, Juavinett AL, Kyubwa EM, Jacobs MW, Callaway EM. Three Types of Cortical Layer 5 Neurons That Differ in Brain-wide Connectivity and Function. Neuron. 2015;88(6):1253–67. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.11.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Dembrow NC, Sawchuk S, Dalley R, Opitz-Araya X, Hudson M, Radaelli C, et al. Areal specializations in the morpho-electric and transcriptomic properties of primate layer 5 extratelencephalic projection neurons. Cell Rep. 2024;43(9):114718. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2024.114718 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wierschke S, Lehmann T-N, Dehnicke C, Horn P, Nitsch R, Deisz RA. Hyperpolarization-activated cation currents in human epileptogenic neocortex. Epilepsia. 2010;51(3):404–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02275.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Howard D, Chameh HM, Guet-McCreight A, Hsiao HA, Vuong M, Seo YS, et al. An in vitro whole-cell electrophysiology dataset of human cortical neurons. Gigascience. 2022;11:giac108. doi: 10.1093/gigascience/giac108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kalmbach BE, Buchin A, Long B, Close J, Nandi A, Miller JA, et al. h-Channels contribute to divergent intrinsic membrane properties of supragranular pyramidal neurons in human versus mouse cerebral cortex. Neuron. 2018;100(5):1194-1208.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.10.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Testa-Silva G, Verhoog MB, Goriounova NA, Loebel A, Hjorth J, Baayen JC, et al. Human synapses show a wide temporal window for spike-timing-dependent plasticity. Front Synaptic Neurosci. 2010;2:12. doi: 10.3389/fnsyn.2010.00012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Armenta-Resendiz M, Cruz SL, Galván EJ. Repeated toluene exposure increases the excitability of layer 5 pyramidal neurons in the prefrontal cortex of adolescent rats. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2018;68:27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ntt.2018.04.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Griego E, Santiago-Jiménez G, Galván EJ. Systemic administration of lipopolysaccharide induces hyperexcitability of prelimbic neurons via modulation of sodium and potassium currents. NeuroToxicol. 2022;91:128–39. doi: 10.1016/j.neuro.2022.05.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Katz E, Stoler O, Scheller A, Khrapunsky Y, Goebbels S, Kirchhoff F, et al. Role of sodium channel subtype in action potential generation by neocortical pyramidal neurons. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115(30). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1720493115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Miller MN, Okaty BW, Nelson SB. Region-Specific Spike-Frequency Acceleration in Layer 5 Pyramidal Neurons Mediated by Kv1 Subunits. J Neurosci. 2008;28(51):13716–26. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.2940-08.2008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Barzó P, Szöts I, Tóth M, Csajbók ÉA, Molnár G, Tamás G. Electrophysiology and morphology of human cortical supragranular pyramidal cells in a wide age range. Elife. 2025;13:RP100390. doi: 10.7554/eLife.100390 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Brenowitz S, Trussell LO. Minimizing Synaptic Depression by Control of Release Probability. J Neurosci. 2001;21(6):1857–67. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.21-06-01857.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Tauffer L, Kumar A. Short-term synaptic plasticity makes neurons sensitive to the distribution of presynaptic population firing rates. eNeuro. 2021;8(2):ENEURO.0297-20.2021. doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0297-20.2021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Beltramo R, D’Urso G, Dal Maschio M, Farisello P, Bovetti S, Clovis Y, et al. Layer-specific excitatory circuits differentially control recurrent network dynamics in the neocortex. Nat Neurosci. 2013;16(2):227–34. doi: 10.1038/nn.3306 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Thuault SJ, Malleret G, Constantinople CM, Nicholls R, Chen I, Zhu J, et al. Prefrontal cortex HCN1 channels enable intrinsic persistent neural firing and executive memory function. J Neurosci. 2013;33(34):13583–99. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.2427-12.2013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Albertson AJ, Williams SB, Hablitz JJ. Regulation of epileptiform discharges in rat neocortex by HCN channels. J Neurophysiol. 2013;110(8):1733–43. doi: 10.1152/jn.00955.2012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Poolos NP, Migliore M, Johnston D. Pharmacological upregulation of h-channels reduces the excitability of pyramidal neuron dendrites. Nat Neurosci. 2002;5(8):767–74. doi: 10.1038/nn891 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Shah MM, Anderson AE, Leung V, Lin X, Johnston D. Seizure-induced plasticity of h channels in entorhinal cortical layer III pyramidal neurons. Neuron. 2004;44(3):495–508. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.10.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Dittman JS, Kreitzer AC, Regehr WG. Interplay between facilitation, depression, and residual calcium at three presynaptic terminals. J Neurosci. 2000;20(4):1374–85. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.20-04-01374.2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Oleskevich S, Clements J, Walmsley B. Release probability modulates short-term plasticity at a rat giant terminal. J Physiol. 2000;524 Pt 2(Pt 2):513–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.00513.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Müller M, Felmy F, Schneggenburger R. A limited contribution of Ca2+ current facilitation to paired-pulse facilitation of transmitter release at the rat calyx of Held. J Physiol. 2008;586(22):5503–20. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2008.155838 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Campagnola L, Seeman SC, Chartrand T, Kim L, Hoggarth A, Gamlin C, et al. Local connectivity and synaptic dynamics in mouse and human neocortex. Science. 2022;375(6585):eabj5861. doi: 10.1126/science.abj5861 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Regehr WG. Short-term presynaptic plasticity. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2012;4(7):a005702. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a005702 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Lou X, Fan F, Messa M, Raimondi A, Wu Y, Looger LL, et al. Reduced release probability prevents vesicle depletion and transmission failure at dynamin mutant synapses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(8):E515-23. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1121626109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Michele Giugliano

25 Apr 2025

Dear Dr. Galvan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 09 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michele Giugliano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[Conahcyt to LR A3-S-26782].

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Marquez et al. examined the membrane and synaptic characteristics of a few pyramidal neurons that were recorded from tissue taken from patients with epilepsy after the suspected seizure origin was surgically removed. According to the results, the primary change that can account for the tissue's hyperexcitability occurs at the synapse level rather than the somatic level.

Given the lack of information on the electrophysiology of neurons from the human brain, especially in diseased situations, the study may be relevant. However, the manuscript requires a significant change before it is ready for publication.

Major:

The location of the tissue of origin must be specified, if it can be found in the surgical data. For instance, whether or not the tissue is hippocampus-derived greatly alters a placement in the temporal lobe. The extent to which the tissue is solely inside the seizure onset zone or includes adjacent tissue that is likely less impacted by the clinical history must also be determined. In this context, the available surgical outcome must also be described in the table of affected individuals. This aids in determining the actual contribution of the excised tissue to each patient's network hyperexcitability.

There are too many details missing to fully comprehend the dataset's nature. For each patient, how many slices were taken? It is necessary to provide further details on the patient from whom the (few) recorded cells originate. For instance, one patient may have had four of the six temporal lobe cells recorded, while the other two patients may have just had one cell.

The statistics are presented in a too careless manner. The authors must try to justify the validity of applying their tests to such small samples for each dataset. The number (n) of measurements from which each reported mean value is derived must be included, particularly when using a repeated measures approach. Even if the result is not significant, it still needs to be reported together with the relevant p-value and other information. To clearly identify which factors were taken into account between-subjects and which were evaluated within-subjects, the mixed-effects ANOVA analysis has to be more thorough.

From what is said in the abstract, the focus on the cell morphology results, which are based on just (!) four cells, must be reduced.

Reviewer #2: 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript presents original research on the electrophysiological and morphological properties of human Layer 5 (L5) pyramidal neurons (PCs) from different cortical regions, obtained from surgical resections of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) patients. The study addresses a relevant and timely topic in human neurophysiology. However, several technical and interpretative issues need to be addressed:

• Methods: Important experimental details are missing, including the osmolarity of all solutions and the rationale for using an unusual transport solution (320 mM sucrose, 1 mM EDTA, 5 mM Tris-HCl), which could affect neuronal viability and physiology due for example to a poor ion balance given by the absence of most of the ions needed to mimic the CSF and so maintain physiological conditions.

The unusually low biocytin concentration (0.04%) is concerning, as it may limit dendritic and axonal filling. The methods section does not specify the number of cells analyzed for dendritic complexity, nor the criteria used for their selection. However, based on the results, it appears that only four cells were included in this analysis. This raises concerns regarding the representativeness and robustness of the findings, as such a small sample size limits the ability to draw meaningful conclusions. Similarly, the small sample size used for the classification of L5 PCs across the different cortices makes generalization difficult.

• Data quantification: Several claims are not adequately supported by quantified data or statistical tests (e.g. lines 287, 296, 300-311). Notably, parameters such as action potential (AP) firing rates, adaptation, and afterhyperpolarization are mentioned but not systematically quantified or statistically compared.

• Neuron classification: The classification of L5 PCs based solely on spike frequency adaptation and firing rate is oversimplified. Extensive literature demonstrates the existence of well-defined subpopulations (ET vs. IT; for human temporal cortex gyrus see for example Kalmbach et al., 2021; for rodent neocortex see Moberg and Takahashi, 2022). These cells have distinct morphological and electrophysiological features that must be taken into account while attempting to classify L5 PCs in human cortex. The authors should revisit their classification strategy in light of established frameworks.

• Results interpretation: The interpretation of the FV-fEPSP relationship and the claim of synaptic imbalance in DRE lacks proper statistical comparison (e.g., regression slopes) and validation against healthy tissue or additional rodent data. Several passages are speculative and need either experimental evidence (e.g., recordings with synaptic blockers) or should be moved to the discussion.

Additionally, the morphological analysis in this study raises concerns about the representativeness and robustness of the findings, as the small sample size and large neuronal heterogeneity in human L5 (e.g., Kalbach et al, 2021) limit meaningful conclusions. Reported values, such as a total dendritic length of ~100 μm and an average of 1.5 branches, are unusually low compared to published data (e.g., >10 mm dendritic length and >60 apical branches in Mohan et al., 2015; Kalbach et al., 2021). These discrepancies may result from technical issues, including low biocytin concentration (0.04%?) or tissue damage during slicing. While the authors briefly mention some limitations, they still draw conclusions as if these morphological parameters were fully representative. Given the small sample size, possible artifacts, and inconsistencies with previous literature, these findings should be interpreted with caution, and further validation with larger, methodologically optimized datasets is strongly recommended.

• Figures: Several figures lack error bars, sample size annotations, and statistical comparisons. Some traces are presented without supporting quantification and should be either properly quantified or removed. Additionally, certain visualizations are unnecessarily complicated. For example, in Fig. 1B, expressing the number of cells as percentages makes the information less accessible than it needs to be, and the actual numbers should be reported directly. In Fig. 5C, D, and F, the heatmaps could be replaced with simple numeric values, as only four cells were analyzed.

In summary, while this study explores an important and promising area, substantial revisions are required to ensure that the conclusions are rigorously and appropriately supported by complete, quantified, and statistically tested data.

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Statistical analyses are generally described but are not always rigorously applied:

• Missing analyses: Many important comparisons (e.g., between cortical regions, between firing pattern types) lack proper statistical testing or explicit reporting of sample sizes. For example, in lines 430-438, the description of spontaneous synaptic events following train stimulation requires clarification. It is unclear whether these events represent recurrent excitation, asynchronous release, or another process. The claim that the number of these events “tended to be higher” in the temporal cortex lacks statistical validation. Further analysis is needed to determine whether this facilitation reflects pathological hyperexcitability or normal synaptic dynamics.

• Choice of error metrics: The use of the standard error of the mean (SEM) rather than standard deviation (SD) with such small sample sizes can give a misleading impression of data variability. SD would be more appropriate to accurately reflect the dispersion within the sample, particularly in cases where individual variability is of interest.

• Linear regression analyses: The interpretation of r² values in the FV-fEPSP relationship needs to be more cautious (lines 399-406). Perfect or near-perfect r² values (such as an r² = 1 in the frontal cortex data) may indicate overfitting that might be given by some issues in the data such as limited data points. Additionally, the phrase “theoretical consistency and proportionality” is vague and should be explicitly defined how the FV-fEPSP relationship in DRE in altered by comparing it with “healthy” tissue (i.e. non-epileptic, for example access tissue from tumor resections) or more rodent data. The least squares method quantifies the strenght of a linear relationship, but it does not inherently substantiate or prove synaptic imbalance. A statistical comparison of regression slopes across conditions is needed to support this claim. Finally, the claim that the proportionality is "disrupted" in DRE should be backed by statistical evidence.

• Assumptions and justifications: The rationale behind choosing specific current injection ranges and classification criteria is unclear and requires clarification. For example, was the range 90-210 pA empirically chosen, or was the firing linear without any adaptation, or was there the absence of significant variability in firing rates?

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The data availability is generally acceptable but lacks clarity in several areas:

• The number of cells analyzed for dendritic complexity is not specified in the methods, though results suggest only four were used, raising concerns about representativeness.

• The availability of raw electrophysiological data (e.g., individual firing frequencies, membrane properties, and fEPSP measurements) is not explicitly confirmed.

• Data supporting several figure panels (e.g., spontaneous postsynaptic potentials, firing rates) are either missing or insufficiently described.

The authors should ensure that all underlying data points (not only summary values) are made available.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

The manuscript is generally intelligible and written in acceptable English, but several issues of clarity, consistency, and terminology need to be addressed:

• Abbreviation consistency: All abbreviations must be defined at first appearance and used consistently throughout the text.

• Sentence clarity: Several sentences in the Introduction and Methods are overly long or ambiguous (e.g., lines 69-73 and 74-79). These should be split and clarified.

• Technical terminology: Terms like “synaptic spontaneous activity” should be replaced by the more precise “spontaneous postsynaptic potentials.” In line 162, it is not clear what the authors mean with “interval’s latency”. If I understand Fig. 1 correctly, the latency refers to the time between the onset of the current injection and the occurrence of each evoked action potential within that step - is this what the authors meant? It should be also better clarified whether the authors refer to cytoarchitectonic subdivisions of Layer 5 (e.g., 5a vs. 5b) or a particular distance from the pia when they write “the middle region of layer V” (line 277) or “external region of layer V” (line 375).

• Consistency in tense and form: Active/passive forms should be harmonized, and descriptions of results made more precise.

• Figure labels: Some figure labels are misleading or incorrect (e.g., calling voltage traces “I-V curves” in Fig. 2B1-B3).

Overall, while the manuscript is understandable, careful editing for clarity, grammar, and terminology is needed.

Summary:

Major points

• Please add missing details in the Methods section, including osmolarity of solutions, rationale for transport medium, objective lenses, z-stack step size, and sample size criteria for morphology analysis.

• Reconsider the classification strategy for Layer 5 pyramidal neurons in light of established subtypes (ET/IT) as described in recent literature (e.g. Kalmbach et al., 2021; Moberg and Takahashi, 2022).

• Quantify all electrophysiological parameters discussed in the text (e.g., AP firing rates, spike adaptation, afterhyperpolarization), and report statistical analyses.

• Correct overinterpretations regarding synaptic influence on firing rates and the FV-fEPSP relationship. These claims should be either experimentally tested (e.g., with synaptic blockers) or restricted to the discussion.

• Review and improve figure presentations, i.e. add error bars, report the number of cells, perform statistical comparisons, and remove unsupported traces.

• Replace speculative interpretations with data-supported statements or move them to the discussion.

• Revise the language for clarity, consistency, and technical accuracy, addressing long or ambiguous sentences, terminology, and typographical errors.

Minor points

• Adjust terminology, e.g. “spontaneous postsynaptic potentials” instead of “synaptic spontaneous activity.”

• Clarify specific method descriptions (e.g., “Membrane capacitance was calculated as the ratio of the membrane time constant to the input resistance”).

• Correct typographical and figure annotation errors (e.g., r² values in line 398, significance asterisks in Fig. 3C).

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Laura Monni

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2026 Jan 27;21(1):e0320711. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320711.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


2 Jul 2025

Here is the list of changes according to the comments raised by the reviewers:

Reviewer #1

Marquez et al. examined the membrane and synaptic characteristics of a few pyramidal neurons that were recorded from tissue taken from patients with epilepsy after the suspected seizure origin was surgically removed. According to the results, the primary change that can account for the tissue’s hyperexcitability occurs at the synapse level rather than the somatic level.

Given the lack of information on the electrophysiology of neurons from the human brain, especially in diseased situations, the study may be relevant. However, the manuscript requires a significant change before it is ready for publication.

Major:

The location of the tissue of origin must be specified, if it can be found in the surgical data. For instance, whether the tissue is hippocampus-derived greatly alters a placement in the temporal lobe. The extent to which the tissue is solely inside the seizure onset zone or includes adjacent tissue that is likely less impacted by the clinical history must also be determined. In this context, the available surgical outcome must also be described in the table of affected individuals. This aids in determining the actual contribution of the excised tissue to each patient’s network hyperexcitability.

First, we would like to acknowledge the time and effort made by the reviewer in reading our manuscript. We have taken into consideration all his/her comments and we have integrated them in both this response letter and the new version of the manuscript.

We understand the relevance of the tissue’s origin and how this factor may influence the electrophysiological properties of the recorded neurons. The cortical tissue included in our study was obtained from patients diagnosed with drug-resistant epilepsy who underwent surgery to resect the brain tissue identified as the epileptic focus. First, the epileptic foci were determined using intraoperative electrocorticography. This gold-standard method identifies epileptiform activity and guides the extent of pathological tissue to be resected. The tissue used in our electrophysiological recordings was derived from these resections, and we assume that most of our samples originated directly from the epileptic focus.

We are sorry to say that the exact anatomical location of each tissue sample is unknown, as the resected material was subsequently sectioned for different studies, including histopathological analyses, biochemical measurements, and electrophysiological analyses. Due to the loss of precise localization of the tissue used for the electrophysiological recordings, we present the results by cortical area type. On the other hand, based on the intraoperative ECoG findings by the surgical team, we understand that most of the resected tissue was pathological. For obvious ethical reasons, it is not possible to obtain healthy, non-pathological tissue for comparative purposes.

Regarding the temporal lobe samples, while most cases of drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy affect the hippocampus, the samples in this study were obtained from non-hippocampal regions of the temporal lobe. Samples of that nature were collected and analyzed for different studies that are beyond the scope of this study. It is, therefore, likely that the epileptic foci in these cases were in other areas, such as the entorhinal or post-rhinal cortices.

Nonetheless, in the updated version of our manuscript, we have clarified in the methods section that the examined tissue was obtained from epileptic foci identified by intraoperative electrocorticography, an experimental technique that confirms their hyperexcitable state at the network level. We hope that the reviewer understands that we cannot provide details regarding the anatomical location of the brain tissue, as the resected tissue was divided in pathological studies for clinical purposes and experimental samples for biochemical and electrophysiological experiments. Despite this limitation, we believe that the quality of the electrophysiological experiments and post-hoc reconstructions provides solid experimental evidence of the activity of human neurons obtained from brain with drug-resistant epilepsy.

Following the reviewer’s comment, the amendment included in the upgraded version of the manuscript reads on page 6 as follows: The resected brain samples were obtained directly from epileptic foci identified by intraoperative electrocorticograms, which confirm their hyperexcitable nature at the network level.

There are too many details missing to fully comprehend the dataset’s nature. For each patient, how many slices were taken? It is necessary to provide further details on the patient from whom the (few) recorded cells originate. For instance, one patient may have had four of the six temporal lobe cells recorded, while the other two patients may have just had one cell.

Before addressing the reviewer’s comment, we would like to emphasize that the data presented in this study are derived from whole cell patch-clamp experiments performed on human tissue obtained directly from surgical procedures. In such cases, it is not possible to establish or preselect the number of cells recorded per patient or to standardize the number of cells to be included in the study. One of the main motivations for submitting this study was the exceptional quality of the electrophysiological recordings. We are aware of the comment that we have a limited number of cells, but the quality of the recordings should be taken into account, rather than focusing solely on the limited number of cells. These are human neurons, not rodent ones. Statistical analyses serve to validate or reject data; we conducted a rigorous analysis for each parameter to validate our findings. With that said, we acknowledge the reviewer’s concern, and we have addressed this issue by including a supplementary database. This database contains all raw electrophysiological measurements corresponding to each Figure, along with detailed information on the number of recorded cells or slices per patient and by cortical region. In the updated manuscript, we present the sample size as n = number of cells / number of samples from 10 patients. For instance, IB neurons, now referred to as extratelencephalic (ET) neurons, have a sample size of n = 10 cells / 4 samples from 10 patients. This indicates that 10 ET neurons were found in only 4 out of the 10 patients. The specific origin of each cell or slice is provided in the supplementary dataset.

The statistics are presented in a too careless manner. The authors must try to justify the validity of applying their tests to such small samples for each dataset. The number (n) of measurements from which each reported mean value is derived must be included, particularly when using a repeated measures approach. Even if the result is not significant, it still needs to be reported together with the relevant p-value and other information. To clearly identify which factors were taken into account between-subjects and which were evaluated within-subjects, the mixed-effects ANOVA analysis has to be more thorough.

The use of parametric statistical tests was based on the assumption of normal distribution, which was confirmed through normality testing. Although we previously stated that normality was assessed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, which were used in most cases, we also performed Shapiro-Wilk tests (originally unaddressed in the methods section). Unlike other normality tests, such as D’Agostino-Pearson or Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, the Shapiro-Wilk test is specifically suited for small sample sizes and can be used with as few as three observations. In other words, the Shapiro-Wilk test is more sensitive for detecting deviations from normality. In the revised version of the manuscript, we now clarify that the normality of the data was validated using a Shapiro-Wilk test, which is appropriate for small sample sizes. This amendment is included in the methods section where it reads: The normality distribution of data was validated and assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, which is appropriate for small sample sizes with a minimum of three observations (n = ≥3).

Regarding the number “n” of measurements, we have revised the manuscript and we have added the number (n) of sample sizes for each electrophysiological parameter examined. Likewise, we selected a mixed-effects ANOVA because our design included two relevant factors influencing firing rate: the cortex type (a between-subjects factor) and current injection (or within-subject factor), following the reviewer’s comment. It is important to note that multiple current levels (0 to 390 pA, 30 pA steps) were somatically injected into the cell, resulting in repeated measures. Given that in two recorded cells, the firing rate values at higher current levels (e.g, 390 pA) were missing, we used mixed-effects ANOVA. This test is well suited to handle unbalanced data and missing values in repeated-measures designs and to account for within-cell variability by including random effects. While it is expected that increasing current magnitude leads to higher firing rates, our main aim was to determine whether firing rate is significantly influenced by cortex type. Nevertheless, following the reviewer´s observation, we have now clarified in the data analysis section that cortex type and current injections correspond to between-subjects factor and within-subject factor, respectively. The revised sentence now reads as follows:

In case of mixed-effects ANOVA, we analyzed cortex type and current injection factors as between-subjects factor and within-subject factor, respectively.

We hope this clarification helps the reviewer understand our rationale for not including the current injection factor (within-subject factor) as a primary explanatory variable for firing rate.

From what is said in the abstract, the focus on the cell morphology results, which are based on just (!) four cells, must be reduced.

Although we believe that including these neuronal reconstructions and morphometric data was relevant due to the information they provided, we also acknowledge the limitations of our dataset, as each human neuron was electrophysiologically characterized at the single-cell level using the whole-cell patch-clamp technique. It is worth noting that we performed biocytin labeling in every cell recorded for this and other studies (from the same tissue sample), and the results were, unfortunately, inconsistent. In some cases, we successfully stained axons, somata, and dendritic fields. However, in a larger part of the post-hoc manipulations, we obtained strong somatic labeling but no dendritic fluorescence or sparse dendritic fluorescence without somatic integrity. It is not easy to contain the excitement when a human neuron, from which all the electrophysiological data were obtained, also exhibited adequate labeling for dendritic reconstructions extending over 400 μm and a consistent distribution of dendritic bifurcations. We believe that this is not a minor or everyday achievement in electrophysiology, or even more importantly, in human electrophysiology using brain samples obtained from the operating room. However, we also acknowledge that both reviewers noted the limitations of this attainment. For this reason, we temper the description and minimize its presentation in the results section. In the upgraded version of the manuscript, we limited our statements to mentioning that a subset of pyramidal cells, which were electrophysiologically characterized, were also morphologically identified.

Reviewer #2:

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript presents original research on the electrophysiological and morphological properties of human Layer 5 (L5) pyramidal neurons (PCs) from different cortical regions, obtained from surgical resections of drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) patients. The study addresses a relevant and timely topic in human neurophysiology. However, several technical and interpretative issues need to be addressed:

• Methods: Important experimental details are missing, including the osmolarity of all solutions and the rationale for using an unusual transport solution (320 mM sucrose, 1 mM EDTA, 5 mM Tris-HCl), which could affect neuronal viability and physiology due for example to a poor ion balance given by the absence of most of the ions needed to mimic the CSF and so maintain physiological conditions.

First, we would like to acknowledge and thank the reviewer for all his/her valuable comments. Each point raised was carefully considered and thoroughly discussed, and we have made a series of amendments following the constructive criticism. We hope that the revised version of the manuscript meets the expectations outlined by the reviewer.

There is a strong rationale and backup literature to justify the sucrose-based solution to maintain the brain tissue in healthy conditions after its isolation. By using 320 mM sucrose, the osmotic pressure exerted by extracellular sodium is maintained, preventing tissue damage due to the increased excitotoxicity triggered by action potential generation or propagation. This manipulation also decreases Ca2+ influx and the subsequent process of neurotransmitter release; a simple method to reduce neuronal excitability. On the other hand, EDTA serves as a Ca2+ chelator and, indeed, a non-specific inactivator of all types of Ca2+-dependent enzymes that may contribute to apoptosis and cell death following the multiple traumatic events experienced by the tissue: surgery, extraction, mechanical manipulation, and then, slicing. Lastly, Tris-HCl adjusted at an adequate pH works as a buffer that resists pH changes within the biological range and preserves the tissue for experimentation. The sucrose-based solution has been used in neurophysiology for over 70 years, as first reported by Gray and Whittaker (Journal of Anatomy, 1962 Jan; 96(Pt 1):79-88) for the isolation of nerve endings. Over the years, mild modifications have been incorporated into this solution to optimize the acute brain slice process. Current literature is packed with examples of those modifications in which the current sucrose concentration, pH control, and calcium chelation are always present.

Now, regarding the possibility of abnormal neuronal physiology due to this solution, it is an unlikely scenario, as neurophysiology has been performed in acute slices obtained with sucrose-based solutions for at least 50 years, and milestone advances, including multiple forms of synaptic plasticity and intrinsic excitability, have been characterized in slices obtained in sucrose-based cutting solutions. In line with this comment, the visual quality of the electrophysiological findings included in this study does not show signs of low-quality recordings, damaged cells, or any suspicious activity of a dying neuron. By visually inspecting the firing discharge and the amplitude of the action potentials obtained during the prolonged depolarization applied in our experiments, it is noticeable that the cell’s physiological response is in good shape.

Therefore, we used a sucrose solution to preserve the human tissue and minimize damage during transportation from the operating room to the laboratory. After slicing the human tissue, the slice’s recovery was performed in a modified ACSF (details in the Methods) that included physiological concentrations of NaCl, KCl, and CaCl2 to facilitate physiological activation. Furthermore, the experiments were performed in standard ACSF maintained at near-physiological temperatures and with constant exposure to carbogen. This strategy, together with the quality of the electrophysiological responses obtained in this and prior (Biomedicines. 2023 Dec 7;11(12):3237.) or ongoing studies under review (Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2025; ID:1627465.), supports the notion that our experiments capture neuronal activity that closely approximates the physiological activation of human neurons.

The unusually low biocytin concentration (0.04%) is concerning, as it may limit dendritic and axonal filling. The methods section does not specify the number of cells analyzed for dendritic complexity, nor the criteri

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx

pone.0320711.s002.docx (51.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Michele Giugliano

4 Oct 2025

Dear Dr. Galvan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 18 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michele Giugliano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2:  I thank the authors for the thorough and thoughtful revisions to their manuscript. The new version is much improved in clarity and presentation, and several of the concerns I raised in my initial review have been well addressed. I appreciate the substantial improvements made in the revised manuscript, particularly the more careful interpretation of the data. This is a welcome change. While I fully understand the challenges involved in working with human cortical tissue - and I acknowledge the value of such data - I would still encourage the authors to frame their conclusions with appropriate caution given the sample size. The difficulty of the preparation is not in question, but ensuring careful interpretation remains important for the strength of the study.

Overall, I believe the manuscript is close to being suitable for publication pending minor revisions.

I do have a few additional comments and suggestions:

1) Thank you for adding the osmolarity value of the intracellular solution (315–325 mOsm/l). While this value is somewhat high compared to typical physiological intracellular osmolarities (~280–295 mOsm), I understand it may not have impacted the current dataset substantially. However, please report the osmolarity also of the other solutions used for transport, slicing, recovery and recording (extracellular aCSF) for completeness.

2) Please include the quality criteria for inclusion of patch clamp recordings, including series resistance and the max % change of it at the end of the recording. Please also add the calculation of the liquid junction potential and if the RMP was corrected for it.

3) Please specify in the Methods section the membrane potential at which cells were held during current-clamp recordings. Additionally, indicate this value (i.e., the RMP) in the example traces in Figure 1D, both for the responses to current injections and for the spontaneous synaptic activity traces.

4) Line 423: the manuscript states that data from " a control rodent´s acute slice " were used for comparative purposes. However, it appears that the rodent dataset consists of only one slope value (n = 1). If so, this does not support statistical testing, as no variance can be estimated from a single observation - even if a standard deviation (SD = 5.68) is later reported. Unless multiple independent rodent data points are available, I recommend presenting this comparison descriptively, without inferential statistics. If instead this was a typo, please correct it and include also the sample size of rodent’s data in the figure legend.

Moreover, since the data were taken from a publication, please cite it also in the results section.

5) Line 427: minor typo in the value of r2.

6) Please review again the use of abbreviations for consistency. For example, the abbreviation “RS” (regular spiking) is used in the text but is not defined at first appearance (e.g., line 167). While it’s acceptable to remind the reader that IT-2 neurons are regular spiking, for clarity and consistency, please use either “IT-2 neurons” or “RS neurons/PCs” throughout. For instance, in the morphological analysis section, the term “RS PCs” appears, which may be confusing without consistent terminology.

7) Discussion: the authors compare RMP values across studies and relate it to the age limitation (range 2–30 years). However, such comparisons are inherently limited: RMP measurements in whole-cell patch clamp are strongly influenced by recording conditions, including pipette and bath solutions, series resistance, dialysis effects, and the often-uncompensated liquid junction potential. Without standardized protocols, direct comparisons of absolute RMP values between studies are not reliable. Furthermore, the cited age range may not represent a major limitation. Barzó et al. (2025, eLife) analyzed a large dataset of human L2/3 pyramidal neurons (from cortical tissue close to pathological lesion – but in line also with non-human primate and rodent studies) across the lifespan and showed that the most pronounced changes in passive properties, including RMP, occur early in life (before age 1), with relatively stable values beyond that. This suggests that developmental shifts in RMP are unlikely to confound comparisons within the 2–30-year range, provided the data were recorded consistently.

8) Please, be consistent also with citation style as sometimes (Last name et al, year) is provided instead of numbers.

Reviewer #3:  Review of “Layer V Neocortical Neurons From Individuals With Drug-Resistant Epilepsy Show Multiple Synaptic Alterations but Lack Somatic Hyperexcitability”

The authors performed whole-cell recordings from human layer-V pyramidal cells resected from the temporal, parietal, and frontal cortex in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Cells were classified as IT-2 (regular-spiking) and ET (intrinsic-bursting), with regional analyses primarily focused on IT-2 neurons. Using L I/II stimulation while recording in L Va, they measured presynaptic fiber volleys (FV) and field EPSPs. FV–fEPSP correlation was weak in human tissue but much stronger in a rodent control. A key finding is that 10-pulse, 30-Hz trains produced significant facilitation in the temporal cortex, whereas the frontal cortex showed only mild facilitation, and the parietal cortex showed none. These synaptic results were accompanied by more spontaneous postsynaptic events in the temporal cortex than in the other regions. In conclusion, the authors state that differences in synaptic properties, rather than cellular electrophysiology, underlie epilepsy.

The authors applied solid, classical methods and clearly state their aims. It is also important to enhance the human electrophysiological recording dataset, as done by the authors, rather than relying on a single dominant source of data. Nevertheless, several concerns arose during reading, some about the results themselves and others about the strength and framing of the conclusions. In some cases, the lack of proper control does not prevent publication but requires the authors to adjust their conclusion.

Major comments

------------------

• SSA and time from resection (Figure 4G).

SSA appears highly related to elapsed time after surgery/slicing (larger immediately post-resection). Did the authors record the time from surgery to experiment for each neuron and analyze SSA versus this interval?

• Sag ratio (IT-2 vs ET).

Reported sag ratios (IT-2: 0.141 ± 0.072; ET: 0.164 ± 0.063) are smaller than expected from prior work and my own experience. Since rodents were also recorded, a rodent sag comparison could be informative. As it stands, the small difference raises concern that the ET vs IT-2 classification may be compromised.

• Input resistance of ET neurons.

ET Rin of 122 ± 24.1 MΩ seems high relative to prior studies (around 50 MΩ). This calls into question the classification and could impact conclusions about IT-2 properties. Please reconcile with the literature and methods.

• Rheobase.

Figures 2F and 2I appear inconsistent regarding rheobase. In Fig. 2I, the fitted curves suggest the smallest rheobase in parietal, not frontal, cortex. Fits in Fig. 2I should correspond to measured rheobases in Fig. 2F; please reconcile this mismatch, as it affects a main conclusion.

• “Loss of STD”.

The statement “These data suggest that frequency-dependent synaptic facilitation or the loss of STD in epileptic neocortex favors excitatory synaptic activity.” is not supportable without a proper control to link these changes to disease. Therefore, the conclusion should be reframed to avoid implying pathological loss without a proper control. Nevertheless, as I understand the difficulty in getting control tissue, therefore, it is important to underline that the results themselves are valuable.

• Morphology sample size.

Only four biocytin-filled RS PCs (from parietal and frontal cortex) were analyzed. Given known variability with depth, cortical folding, and location within a slice, even within a small region, this is insufficient for strong conclusions. The authors already considered this issue for reviewers #1 and #2, but unfortunately, the issue still stands. Namely, the similarity between the cells could be either statistically significant or not.

Important points

--------------------

• External Ca²⁺.

Because [Ca²⁺]o critically sets release probability, it can strongly alter short-term plasticity. Please, either provide a control demonstrating that your [Ca²⁺]o choice does not change the qualitative outcome, or discuss how different [Ca²⁺]o would impact interpretation.

• “Barely exhibited SSA at RMP.”

If PCs “barely exhibited SSA at their RMP,” what are the consequences for analyses that use SSA as a readout? Please clarify how SSA was ultimately used in Figure 4G.

• Rheobase vs threshold.

If rheobase differs across regions while RMP and Rin are similar, this implies a lower voltage threshold for AP initiation in the frontal cortex (≈ 60% closer to rest than the temporal). Can this be confirmed directly from existing data?

• “Higher global Na⁺ conductance in frontal PCs.”

Could differences in Na⁺ channel kinetics or subtype expression also explain the observations, beyond “global conductance”? A more nuanced report on the observation would help.

• AP dV/dt variance.

Reported slopes (e.g., −83.9 ± 37.1 mV/ms temporal; −48.2 ± 1.96 mV/ms parietal; −77.5 ± 27.4 mV/ms frontal) show a strikingly smaller SD in parietal neurons. Please explain this disparity.

• Human vs rodent slope comparison.

The statement that slopes differ significantly from the rodent control and therefore indicate “altered synaptic response dynamics” is hard to interpret. Why would human microcircuits be expected to match rodent slopes, given anatomical differences (layers and size proportions of the different layers)? Please justify or reframe.

• Use of predicted values.

In figure 4, the authors plot the FV-fEPSP predicted values (from the fitted line). I have to admit that understanding the reasoning for this plotting is not easy. Please consider a clarification for this panel not to burden the reader

• AIS identification.

“The axon’s initial segment was visually identified.” How was the end of the AIS determined? Please reference standard criteria for AIS identification.

Minor points

--------------

• The Introduction mentions “different neuronal mechanisms at different organizational levels.” Please define these levels explicitly.

• “Glutamatergic strength, the synchronicity between presynaptic volleys and field EPSPs, and short-term, frequency-dependent plasticity were determined at the synaptic level.” Please clarify this phrasing; synaptic properties are, by definition, at the synaptic level.

• “To explore a possible desynchronization… FV vs fEPSP slopes were correlated.” How is “desynchronization” defined here? Do you mean reduced coupling or statistical independence between the two signals?

• “≈ 65% of the recorded neurons belong to the IT-2 neurons…” Consider: “≈ 65% of recorded neurons belong to the IT-2 class/ were IT-2.”

• “Extracellular recordings in independent slices.” Please define “independent” (e.g., different patients, different blocks, or non-overlapping sites?).

• “Strong linear correlation and slope recovery… despite disorganized or desynchronized conditions.” The terms “disorganized” and “desynchronized” are not clear in this context. Please clarify, define precisely, or revise.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: Yes: Laura Monni

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2026 Jan 27;21(1):e0320711. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320711.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


21 Nov 2025

Responses for reviewers’ comments

Review 2

I thank the authors for the thorough and thoughtful revisions to their manuscript. The new version is much improved in clarity and presentation, and several of the concerns I raised in my initial review have been well addressed. I appreciate the substantial improvements made in the revised manuscript, particularly the more careful interpretation of the data. This is a welcome change. While I fully understand the challenges involved in working with human cortical tissue – and I acknowledge the value of such data - I would still encourage the authors to frame their conclusions with appropriate caution given the sample size. The difficulty of the preparation is not in question, but ensuring careful interpretation remains important for the strength of the study.

Overall, I believe the manuscript is close to being suitable for publication pending minor revisions. I do have a few additional comments and suggestions:

1) Thank you for adding the osmolarity value of the intracellular solution (315–325 mOsm/l). While this value is somewhat high compared to typical physiological intracellular osmolarities (~280–295 mOsm), I understand it may not have impacted the current dataset substantially. However, please report the osmolarity also of the other solutions used for transport, slicing, recovery and recording (extracellular aCSF) for completeness.

R: We have added this information to the revised manuscript. The osmolarities of the solutions were approximately 315 mOsm for the transport solution, 290 mOsm for the slicing solution, 315–320 mOsm for the incubation solution, and 290–295 mOsm for the aCSF solution. These values are now shown in methods section.

Also, we followed the reviewer comments, and we included a “limitations of the study” paragraph in the discussion section of the study. We have temper our interpretations and acknowledge our limitations in the study.

2) Please include the quality criteria for inclusion of patch clamp recordings, including series resistance and the max % change of it at the end of the recording. Please also add the calculation of the liquid junction potential and if the RMP was corrected for it.

R: The series resistance values recorded ranged from 14 to 25 MΩ, and cells that exhibited a >20 % change were excluded from analysis. The liquid junction potential was 12–15mV, and the RMP values were not corrected for it. This information was added to the methods section (lines 199 to 201).

3) Please specify in the Methods section the membrane potential at which cells were held during current-clamp recordings. Additionally, indicate this value (i.e., the RMP) in the example traces in Figure 1D, both for the responses to current injections and for the spontaneous synaptic activity traces.

R: For current-clamp recordings, intrinsic membrane properties were determined at RMP, and the firing measurements were performed at a holding potential of −70 mV. This information is included in the Methods section of the revised version of the manuscript. Since representative traces by firing type and SSA traces were obtained from the same cell, we have added the RMP value on the left side of each representative trace by firing type in Figure 1D.

4) Line 423: the manuscript states that data from “a control rodent´s acute slice” were used for comparative purposes. However, it appears that the rodent dataset consists of only one slope value (n =1). If so, this does not support statistical testing, as no variance can be estimated from a single observation - even if a standard deviation (SD =5.68) is later reported. Unless multiple independent rodent data points are available, I recommend presenting this comparison descriptively, without inferential statistics. If instead this was a typo, please correct it and include also the sample size of rodent’s data in the figure legend. Moreover, since the data were taken from a publication, please cite it also in the results section.

R: Thanks for noticing this mistake. It was a typo, now corrected to “control rodent’s acute slices.” For the correlation analysis in the rodent cortex, we used measurements of 91 events (fEPSPs) obtained from 5 slices across 3 animals, which are now included in the revised version of our manuscript both results section and corresponding figure legend.

5) Line 427: minor typo in the value of r2.

R: Thanks for this observation. We had corrected the mistake.

6) Please review again the use of abbreviations for consistency. For example, the abbreviation “RS” (regular spiking) is used in the text but is not defined at first appearance (e.g., line 167). While it’s acceptable to remind the reader that IT-2 neurons are regular spiking, for clarity and consistency, please use either “IT-2 neurons” or “RS neurons/PCs” throughout. For instance, in the morphological analysis section, the term “RS PCs” appears, which may be confusing without consistent terminology.

R: We have revised the consistency of abbreviations. RS was defined at its first appearance (line 208 in revised manuscript), and RS neurons in the morphological analysis section were replaced by IT-2 neurons for consistency. Furthermore, abbreviations with low frequency, such as intrinsic burst (IB) and adaptive firing (AF), have been removed.

7) Discussion: the authors compare RMP values across studies and relate it to the age limitation (range 2–30 years). However, such comparisons are inherently limited: RMP measurements in whole-cell patch clamp are strongly influenced by recording conditions, including pipette and bath solutions, series resistance, dialysis effects, and the often-uncompensated liquid junction potential. Without standardized protocols, direct comparisons of absolute RMP values between studies are not reliable. Furthermore, the cited age range may not represent a major limitation. Barzó et al. (2025, eLife) analyzed a large dataset of human L2/3 pyramidal neurons (from cortical tissue close to pathological lesion – but in line also with non-human primate and rodent studies) across the lifespan and showed that the most pronounced changes in passive properties, including RMP, occur early in life (before age 1), with relatively stable values beyond that. This suggests that developmental shifts in RMP are unlikely to confound comparisons within the 2–30-year range, provided the data were recorded consistently.

R: We thank you for this observation. We acknowledge that RMP measurements are strongly influenced by the experimental recording conditions, as mentioned by the reviewer. We also appreciate that the reviewer brought up the work by Barzó et al. (2025), which allows us to better compare our data and refine the discussion narrative. However, we would like to highlight one observation from Barzó et al. While it is clear that the dramatic changes in passive membrane properties occur during the first year of life, subtle yet significant differences, including in RMP, can still be observed across life stages.

Although our study shows that, despite age differences (2–7 years, childhood, for the parietal cortex; 21–30 years, early adulthood, for the temporal and frontal cortices), RMP is relatively homogeneous across the regions examined, this remains an interesting observation. Barzó et al. (2025), using “non-pathological” or non-epileptic tissue, reported that RMP becomes significantly more hyperpolarized between early childhood and early adulthood (mean ± SD: –65.44 ± 6.82 mV vs. –68.69 ± 5.54 mV). While we recognize the difficulty of directly comparing RMP values across studies, the findings of Barzó et al. (2025), along with those cited in our discussion, support the notion that RMP values obtained from tissue derived from epileptic foci are more hyperpolarized than expected under non-epileptic conditions, possibly reflecting underlying pathological or compensatory mechanisms. In the revised manuscript, we have modified the paragraph in the discussion section to address this idea in the following paragraph (page 29):

Another important consideration is that electrophysiological measurements may vary across life stages (Barzó et al., 2025). For instance, the RMP in layer II/III PCs from non-epileptic tissue becomes more hyperpolarized from childhood to early adulthood (mean: –65 mV vs. –69 mV). In our study, despite age differences between the examined cortices (2–7 years, childhood, for the parietal cortex; 21–30 years, early adulthood, for the temporal and frontal cortices), the RMP was predominantly more hyperpolarized (–72 to –73 mV) than in cortical neurons from non-epileptic tissue (Moradi Chameh et al., 2021; Barzó et al., 2025). These observations support the idea that a more hyperpolarized RMP may be an underlying feature of epileptic tissue. However, it is worth noting that other factors, such as series resistance and liquid junction potential, can also influence RMP measurements.

8) Please, be consistent also with citation style as sometimes (Last name et al, year) is provided instead of numbers.

R: We have amended this mistake. Thanks.

Reviewer #3:

Review of “Layer V Neocortical Neurons From Individuals With Drug-Resistant Epilepsy Show Multiple Synaptic Alterations but Lack Somatic Hyperexcitability”

The authors performed whole-cell recordings from human layer-V pyramidal cells resected from the temporal, parietal, and frontal cortex in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Cells were classified as IT-2 (regular-spiking) and ET (intrinsic-bursting), with regional analyses primarily focused on IT-2 neurons. Using L I/II stimulation while recording in L Va, they measured presynaptic fiber volleys (FV) and field EPSPs. FV–fEPSP correlation was weak in human tissue but much stronger in a rodent control. A key finding is that 10-pulse, 30-Hz trains produced significant facilitation in the temporal cortex, whereas the frontal cortex showed only mild facilitation, and the parietal cortex showed none. These synaptic results were accompanied by more spontaneous postsynaptic events in the temporal cortex than in the other regions. In conclusion, the authors state that differences in synaptic properties, rather than cellular electrophysiology, underlie epilepsy.

The authors applied solid, classical methods and clearly state their aims. It is also important to enhance the human electrophysiological recording dataset, as done by the authors, rather than relying on a single dominant source of data. Nevertheless, several concerns arose during reading, some about the results themselves and others about the strength and framing of the conclusions. In some cases, the lack of proper control does not prevent publication but requires the authors to adjust their conclusion.

Major comments

• SSA and time from resection (Figure 4G).

SSA appears highly related to elapsed time after surgery/slicing (larger immediately post-resection). Did the authors record the time from surgery to experiment for each neuron and analyze SSA versus this interval?

R: We did not examine the relationship between the time from surgery and the timing of the analysis of spontaneous postsynaptic potentials shown in Figure 4. We would like to clarify that we measured SSA at the somatic level using whole-cell recordings (Figure 1) and spontaneous postsynaptic potentials elicited by gamma train stimulation (10 stimuli at 30 Hz) at the synaptic level using extracellular recordings (Figure 4). In both cases, the average time between brain tissue extraction during surgery and the beginning of electrophysiological recordings was 3 ± 0.5 h.

As we stated in our manuscript, the recorded neurons did not exhibit SSA at resting membrane potential in the whole-cell configuration. However, spontaneous postsynaptic potentials emerged during 30 Hz stimulation, which were highly correlated with the magnitude of facilitation in response to the 30 Hz train (Figure 4G), possibly enhancing excitatory drive during high-frequency periods of neuronal activity. Therefore, although it may seem logical that an earlier start of electrophysiological recordings would be associated with vigorous spontaneous postsynaptic activity, the consistent absence of SSA in whole-cell recordings and the controlled average delay between tissue extraction and the onset of experiments make such a relationship unlikely.

• Sag ratio (IT-2 vs ET).

Reported sag ratios (IT-2: 0.141 ± 0.072; ET: 0.164 ± 0.063) are smaller than expected from prior work and my own experience. Since rodents were also recorded, a rodent sag comparison could be informative. As it stands, the small difference raises concern that the ET vs IT-2 classification may be compromised.

R: Thanks for this observation. There are several factors that could explain this difference. First, methodological differences in measuring the sag ratio. For example, Kalmbach et al. (2021) reported sag values between 1.1 and 1.25, with ET neurons exhibiting a significantly higher sag ratio than IT-2 neurons. These values are considerably higher than our measurements. In our study, we calculated the sag ratio as the proportion between the voltage change from the maximal hyperpolarizing deflection to the steady-state voltage and the total voltage change from the resting membrane potential (RMP) to the maximal deflection in response to a −300 pA current injection, following a classical method for sag ratio estimation. Using the method described by Kalmbach et al., our measurements increased by approximately one unit, yielding values closer to those reported by Kalmbach et al.

Regarding the possible influence of sag ratio values on neuronal classification, we would like to clarify that the primary criterion for classifying neurons as ET or IT (type 1 and type 2 subtypes) was their firing pattern, specifically whether they exhibited intrinsic bursting or regular spiking. This parameter is considered the most reliable criterion for neuronal classification. That said, the absence of differences in sag ratio values observed between ET and IT-2 neurons are more likely explained by the tissue origin, which was derived from epileptic foci in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, and by potential alterations in HCN channel expression, as briefly mentioned in the new section titled Electrophysiological Differences between IT-2 and ET neurons.

• Input resistance of ET neurons.

ET Rin of 122 ± 24.1 MΩ seems high relative to prior studies (around 50 MΩ). This calls into question the classification and could impact conclusions about IT-2 properties. Please reconcile with the literature and methods.

We understand this concern. The first criterion used to differentiate pyramidal neurons as IT-2 or ET neurons was their firing pattern—regular spiking or burst spiking, respectively. Once this classification was established, both groups displayed the classical differences in other electrophysiological parameters, such as spike adaptation, instantaneous firing frequency, and input resistance, which are among the most robust electrophysiological distinctions between these neuronal populations (Kalmbach et al., 2021). Regarding the higher input resistance values observed in our experiments compared with previous studies, several factors could contribute to these differences such as health status if the tissue (non-epileptic tissue or tissue distant from tumor zones vs tissue derived from epileptic foci), composition of cutting solution (NMDG-based vs. sucrose-based), the integrity of the dendritic tree after slicing process and levels of expression of HCN channels.

Given the reviewer’s timely concern about classifying pyramidal neurons as ET and IT-2, and the differences in the magnitude of classic electrophysiological hallmarks (input resistance and sag ratio), we added a section in discussion section addressing this point. In this section, we highlight the electrophysiological features that distinguish ET from IT-2 neurons and discuss possible explanations—such as characteristics related to tissue health or methodological differences—for the variations in input resistance and HCN-mediated sag. This section appears on pages 28-29.

• Rheobase.

Figures 2F and 2I appear inconsistent regarding rheobase. In Fig. 2I, the fitted curves suggest the smallest rheobase in parietal, not frontal, cortex. Fits in

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses for reviewers.docx

pone.0320711.s003.docx (43KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Michele Giugliano

7 Jan 2026

Layer V Neocortical Neurons From Individuals With Drug-Resistant Epilepsy Show Multiple Synaptic Alterations but Lack Somatic Hyperexcitability

PONE-D-25-08682R2

Dear Dr. Galvan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Michele Giugliano

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: Yes: Laura Monni

**********

Acceptance letter

Michele Giugliano

PONE-D-25-08682R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Galvan,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Michele Giugliano

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Detailed information of the recorded neurons.

    Individual data included in the study, organized by neuron type and experimental protocol applied. Each Excel tab contains the neurophysiological values processed for each figure in the manuscript.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0320711.s001.xlsx (28.5KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0320711.s002.docx (51.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses for reviewers.docx

    pone.0320711.s003.docx (43KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES