astrocyte
25–27
. Such glutamate can potentially target presynaptic NMDA receptors, which increase the release probability
28
,
or presynaptic mGluRs, which decrease it
29
. Presynaptic kainate receptors exhibit a more complex modulation of synaptic
transmission through both metabotropic and ionotropic effects
30,31
. Based on experiment facts, many computational models
have been proposed taking into account neuron to astrocyte interactions to describe the interneuronal communication
32–38
.
Many experimental works are shown that astrocytes can coordinate the neuronal network activations
38–41
. Because astrocyte is
affected by a large number of synapses, the gliatransmission should also contribute to the effect of neuronal synchronization.
Particularly, it was demonstrated in a hippocampal network, where calcium elevations in astrocytes and subsequent glutamate
release led to the synchronous excitation of clusters of pyramidal neurons42,43.
Coronavirus COVID-19 has become a global challenge of the modern world, stimulating intensive research in many related
areas of science. Along with the development of vaccines, a fundamentally important global task is to investigate Covid-19
effects on different systems of human organisms. Recent studies have shown that coronavirus infection, entering the central
nervous system and infecting astrocytes, causes various metabolic disorders, one of which is a decrease in the synthesis of
astrocytic glutamate and GABA
44
. It is also known that in the postcovid state, patients may suffer from symptoms of anxiety and
impaired cognitive functions, which may be a consequence of disturbed brain rhythms. In this paper, we propose a mathematical
model of impact SARS-CoV-2-infected astrocyte on the ability to synchronize neural networks and produce brain rhythms. We
show that depending on the degree of disturbance in the synthesis of gliatransmitters neuronal network synchronization can be
partially or completely suppressed.
Results
First, let us consider how the astrocytes induced the appearance of quasi-synchronous bursting dynamics. If no astrocytic
feedback is activated, e.g.,
γY=0
, the network showed asynchronous spontaneous firing due to uncorrelated noisy component
of applied current,
Iext
stimulated all neurons (not shown in the figures). When the feedback is activated,
γY>0
, the model
starts to generate population burst discharges as illustrated in Fig. 3. Similar to previous modeling studies
38–41 t
he astrocytes
started to coordinate neuronal activity, inducing a certain level of coherence in the network firing. On the one hand, each
astrocyte was activated integrating neuronal activity in its neighboring space. On the other hand, when astrocyte was activated
it facilitated synchronously the activation of accompanying neurons within a certain area. In a result, neurons generated
quasi-synchronous high-frequency burst discharges (Fig. 3). These discharges were synchronized with peaks of extracellular
glutamate concentration associated with the astrocytes activations. It should be noted that population burst dynamics is typical
for living networks formed in dissociated cortical (or hippocampal) neuronal culture models in vitro
45–47
. In such biological
models normal bursting indicates normal activity. In different pathological conditions (hypoxic–ischemic injury, alpha or theta
coma or electrocerebral inactivity48) bursting fails what indicates the decrease of functional coherence in the network firing.
Next, we activated the virus pathological action in the model by increasing
γvirus >0
. Figure 4illustrates how network
activity changed in this case. The raster plot shows that normal bursting were interrupted by the intervals of asynchronous
uncorrelated firing. Corresponfing graphs of glutamate concentration in the right panels indicate that in these intervals the
astrocytes were partly (lower peaks) or completely (no peaks) inhibited. After this intervals bursts were spontaneously
recovered to normal sequences. So that, the result of SARS-CoV-2-infection at network level provokes to the failure of
normal synchronization at network level while each neuron in the network works fine and each synaptic connections stay well
functioning. Note, that for low values of
γvirus
associated with a “light” infection cases the intervals of uncorrelated firing are
quite shot indicating a kind intermittent behavior between long lasting normal synchronous (e.g. “laminar”) stages and rather
shot pathological asynchronous (e.g. “turbulent”) breaks.
The next prediction of the model concerns a gradual character of the infection influence. It means that higher level of
SARS-CoV-2 concentration in the organism will result in stronger pathological response. In terms of our model the increase of
γvirus
leads to the increase of intervals of “pathological” firing (Fig. 5). One can note that the number of normal bursts withing
the same sample window significantly descrease. In terms of neuro- and gliatransmitter concentrations (right panels of Fig.
5) we also noticed the decrease of functionality not only of all astrocytes but also neurons. Some of them become depressed
because of lack of sufficient amount glutamate to support normal excitatory transmission. So that, the higher SARS-CoV-2
concentration is exposed, then more astrocytes are infected and, hence, more “explicit” pathological synchrony breaks appear at
the level of network firing.
As one may expect now, further increase of
γvirus
completely inhibited the synchronization. It is illustrated in Fig. 6.
Correspondingly, all astrocytes failed to realease any glutamate. Note, however, that overall network firing still preserves
sustained by activations of excitatory neurons with relatively strong glutamatergic synapses. To quantify the gradual character
of the network dysfunction due to SARS-CoV-2 infection we calculated the quantity reflecting the average burst frequency
versus γvirus (Fig. 7). The graph represents monotonically descreading function vanishing at γvirus →1.
2/12