Cross-species representation learning aligns mouse and human neural dynamics and tracks clinical drug efficacy
Organizations: Exin Therapeutics, Inc., 2261 Market Street STE 22614, San Francisco, California 94114, United States
Abstract
Preclinical models poorly predict human drug efficacy, particularly in neurological disorders. Neural activity offers a uniquely rich source of translational information because it captures high-dimensional variation in nervous-system function that can be measured in both animals and humans. However, its high dimensionality makes it difficult to distinguish conserved disease-related features from variation arising from species, recording modality and experimental context. Here, we test whether shared neural dynamics can be identified directly from electrophysiology data by learning representations organized by biological state rather than species. We develop a dual-rule contrastive learning framework that aligns corresponding mouse and human states while preserving separation between distinct phenotypes. This framework recovered conserved sensory-response structure across species and, in epilepsy, resolved distinct relationships between three mouse models and heterogeneous human patient populations. When treated animals were projected into a frozen cross-species representation, drug-induced movement towards the human-aligned healthy state retrospectively tracked known clinical efficacy across ten model-drug combinations including a disease-specific detrimental effect. The framework also identified shared disease-associated neural dynamics between Fmr1-knockout mice and human 16p11.2 copy-number variant carriers despite differences in genetic aetiology and recording modality. Together, these findings show the potential of cross-species neural representation learning to map heterogeneous human disease onto experimentally tractable preclinical states and assess whether interventions restore human-relevant circuit function.
Figures & tables
| Task | Subjects tested | Projection axis | Mean projection | Sign | Sample size | P -value | FDR-adjusted P (BH) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Audio vs Visual | Human | Human | 0.604 | 9 | 0.03516 | 0.04280 | |
| Audio vs Visual | Human | Mouse | 0.606 | 9 | 0.03516 | 0.04280 | |
| Audio vs Visual | Mouse | Mouse | 0.815 | 12 | 0.0004883 | 0.002279 | |
| Audio vs Visual | Mouse | Human | 0.821 | 12 | 0.0004883 | 0.002279 | |
| ASSR | Human | Human | 0.703 | 9 | 0.01953 | 0.02734 | |
| ASSR | Human | Mouse | 0.658 | 9 | 0.01953 | 0.02734 |
| Attribute | Mouse PTZ | Mouse 4-AP | Mouse AY9944 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mouse contrast | Discharge vs duration-matched non-seizure (within animal) | Detected ictal vs non-seizure (within animal) | SWD vs the same detector’s positives in saline animals (between animal) |
| Human comparator | TUSZ, by seizure type vs healthy | TUSZ, by seizure type vs healthy | TUSZ, by seizure type vs healthy |
| Mouse N | 13 animals / 57 sessions (Control arm) | 23 animals | 32 untreated + 32 saline animals / 233 recordings |
| Spectral peak (Hz) | 3 | 29 | 3 |
| Gamma 30-70 Hz enhancement | -20.4 | +22.2 | -4.0 (suppressed) |
| Best human match | ABSZ +0.94 | TCSZ +0.64 | ABSZ +0.91 |
| Unified epilepsy model | Fmr1 –16p11.2 model | |
|---|---|---|
| Data | ||
| Human units | TUEP: 96 patients with epilepsy, 82 without; each patient’s recordings ( 10) pooled into one unit | 14 controls, 25 deletion and 15 duplication carriers; carriers pooled as one class in training |
| Mouse units | PTZ, 13 mice: 0–30 min post-PTZ vs 0–30 min post-saline, same animal 4-AP, 14 mice: 0–60 min post-4-AP vs pre-injection epoch, same animal AY9944: 43 untreated or control-vector mice vs 32 saline controls | 53 wild-type, 17 Fmr1 -KO |
| Channels | Mouse: EEG1, EEG2 Human: 2 drawn at random per window from 19 referential 10–20 channels | 117 human and 32 mouse candidates; 97–117 and 25–32 remain after bad-channel rejection 1 ; 16 drawn at random per window in both species |
| Resampling and filtering | 250 Hz; 0.5–70 Hz band-pass (4th-order zero-phase Butterworth); no notch | Mouse: 30 kHz 1.5 kHz (FIR), notch at 60 Hz and harmonics, 1–95 Hz band-pass, 250 Hz Human: notches at 60–240 Hz, 1–95 Hz band-pass, 500 250 Hz Both: 56–64 Hz band-stop; all filters zero-phase, 4th-order Butterworth |
| Windows | 8 s (2,000 samples), evenly spaced; 400 per human recording, 240 per mouse epoch | 8 s, 240 per recording (step 2–8 s); a window is rejected if 25% of its channels are outliers 2 |