# Welcome back

## Find a book, put up your feet, stay awhile

Sign in with Facebook

Sorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

or

Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more

Download

Standard view

Full view

of .

Look up keyword

Like this

Share on social networks

1Activity

×

0 of .

Results for: No results containing your search query

P. 1

Wiring Optimization Can Relate Neuronal Structure and FunctionRatings: (0)|Views: 26|Likes: 1

Published by Kevin Gordish

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/37345576/Wiring-Optimization-Can-Relate-Neuronal-Structure-and-Function

09/13/2010

text

original

Wiring optimization can relate neuronal structureand function

Beth L. Chen*

†

, David H. Hall

‡

, and Dmitri B. Chklovskii*

†

*Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724; and

‡

Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461Edited by Charles F. Stevens, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA, and approved January 26, 2006 (received for review August 8, 2005)

We pursue the hypothesis that neuronal placement in animalsminimizeswiringcostsforgivenfunctionalconstraints,asspeciﬁedby synaptic connectivity. Using a newly compiled version of the

Caenorhabditis elegans

wiring diagram, we solve for the optimallayout of 279 nonpharyngeal neurons. In the optimal layout, mostneurons are located close to their actual positions, suggesting thatwiring minimization is an important factor. Yet some neuronsexhibit strong deviations from ‘‘optimal’’ position. We proposethat biological factors relating to axonal guidance and commandneuron functions contribute to these deviations. We capture thesefactors by proposing a modiﬁed wiring cost function.

Caenorhabditis elegans

optimal placement

B

ecause brain structure is intimately related to its function,understanding structure should provide important clues tobrain function. Traditionally, structural features of the brain areexplained from the perspective of development, a complex processincludingsucheventsascellmigration(1,2),axonalguidance(3–5),cellular signaling (6), and synaptogenesis (7–10). Although muchprogresshasbeenmadeinunderstandingthemechanismsofneuraldevelopment, many unanswered questions remain. In particular, itis not known what determines the placement of neurons andsynapses in the body, a question to be addressed in this paper.Our approach for understanding neuronal structures comple-ments neural development and relies on the existence of generalprinciplesgoverningthearchitectureofamaturebrain.Specifically, we exploit the wiring economy principle proposed by Ramo´n yCajal more than 100 years ago (11). This principle postulates that,for a given wiring diagram, neurons are arranged in an animal tominimizethewiringcost.Theevolutionary‘‘cost’’canbeattributedto factors such as wire volume (12–14) and signal delay andattenuation (15–17), as well as metabolic expenditures associated with signal propagation and maintenance (18, 19). Although theexact origin of the wiring cost is not known, the farther apart twoneurons are, the more costly is the connection between them. The wiring cost can therefore be expressed as a function of distancebetween neurons and consequently minimized (12, 20–25).Despite many successful applications of the wiring minimizationprinciple (refs. 12–14 and 20–27, but see ref. 28), it has never beentested on the level of individual neurons for an entire nervoussystem. Such testing was precluded by the lack of wiring diagramsand by the computational complexity of the optimization problem.Previous works have shown that wire length minimization canexplainthelayoutofsmallsystemsbytabulatingtheamountofwirerequired for every possible permutation of components in thenetwork. The actual ordering of ganglia in

Caenorhabditis elegans

(20) and the arrangement of areas in the prefrontal cortex in themacaque (27) were found in this manner to have the shortest total wiring. Unfortunately, this brute force method is impractical for allbut the smallest networks (number of components of order 10),because the number of permutations increases exponentially withthenumberofcomponents.Inaddition,theresultsprovideonlytherelative ordering of components and not their exact positions in anactual animal.In this paper, we solve for the neuronal layout of an entirenervoussystemofthenematode

C.elegans

usingtheupdatedwiringdiagram and powerful placement algorithms borrowed from com-puter engineering (29–33). We consider 279 neurons (pharyngealand unconnected neurons excluded) of the hermaphrodite worm, whose identity, locations of cell bodies, sensory endings, andneuromuscular junctions, as well as the wiring diagram, have been well studied and found to be largely reproducible from animal toanimal (34, 35). The length of the worm is

10 times greater thanitsdiameter,allowingustoreducetheproblemintoonedimension.By minimizing the cost of connecting the nervous system, oursolution predicts the position of most neurons along the anterior–posterior (AP) body axis of the nematode worm. This resultsuggests that wiring minimization is a good general description of the relationship between connectivity and neuron placement. Acomparison of the cost-minimized layout with actual neuron posi-tions revealed groups of outlier neurons with distinct structuralcharacteristics. Interestingly, neurons within each group have beenshown in experiments to play similar roles in the worm nervoussystem: developmental pioneering and signal integration for motorcontrol. We suggest that the results obtained from cost minimiza-tion can be used in a number of ways to infer neuron function.

§

Wiring Cost Minimization in the Dedicated-Wire Model

We start by modeling the nervous system (see Fig. 1

B Inset

forexample) as a network of nodes that correspond to neuronal cellbodies, connected by wires that represent synapses (Fig. 1

C Inset

).We call such model ‘‘dedicated wire,’’ because each synapse has itsown wire (similar to point-to-point axon design in ref. 14). Addi-tional wires connect neurons to sensory endings and muscles. Assuming that the placement of these structures is subject toconstraints independent of neuronal organization, their positionsare fixed.The total wiring cost (

C

tot

) can be expressed as the sum of aninternalcosttoconnectneuronstoeachother(

C

int

)andanexternalcost to attach neurons to the fixed structures (

C

ext

):

C

tot

C

int

C

ext

.

[1]

We assume that the cost of wiring the

i

th and

j

th neurons isproportionaltosomepower,

,ofthedistancebetweenthem.Thenthe total internal wiring cost is:

C

int

12

i

j

A

ij

x

i

x

j

,

[2]

where

x

i

is the neuron position, and

is an unknown coefficient.

A

ij

is an element of the adjacency matrix

A

, representing the totalnumber of synapses between neurons

i

and

j

in both directions.Because the wiring cost is assumed to be independent of thedirectionality of synapse (i.e., signal propagation from neuron

i

to

Conﬂict of interest statement: No conﬂicts declared.This paper was submitted directly (Track II) to the PNAS ofﬁce.

†

To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: chenb@cshl.edu or mitya@cshl.edu.

§

Resultsofthisworkwerepresentedatthe2004ComputationalandSystemsNeuroscience(Cosyne) meeting at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.© 2006 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA

www.pnas.org

cgi

doi

10.1073

pnas.0506806103 PNAS

March 21, 2006

vol. 103

no. 12

4723–4728

N E U R O S C I E N C E

j

or vice versa), matrix

A

is symmetric (

A

ij

A

ji

). Also, the cost isassumed to be independent of synapse polarity (i.e., inhibitory vs.excitatory), so the adjacency matrix is nonnegative (

A

ij

0).The second term in Eq.

1

represents the cost of wiring neuronsto sensory organs,

k

, located at positions

s

k

, and muscles,

l

, atpositions

m

l

:

C

ext

i

k

S

ik

x

i

s

k

1

i

l

M

il

x

i

m

l

,

[3]

where

S

ik

is the number of synapses between neuron

i

and sensoryorgan

k

, and

M

il

is the number of synapses between neuron

i

andmuscle

l.

In the schematic network illustrated in Fig. 1

C Inset

, theadjacencymatrix(

A

),neuron-to-sensory(

S

),andneuron-to-musclematrices (

M

) are:

A

0 3 13 0 11 1 0

,

S

100

,

M

001

.

[4]

To account for multiplicity of synapses on a single neurite, weapply a coefficient 1

to neuron-to-neuron (Eq.

2

) and neuron-to-muscle (second term in Eq.

3

) costs based on the following. Inthe dedicated-wire model, the cost of connecting two neurons isdirectlyproportionaltothenumberofsynapsesbetweenthem(Fig.1

C Inset

), equivalent to having a dedicated wire for each synapse.Yet, in the actual worm, the majority of neurons are nonbranchingand bipolar, making an average of 58.6

en passant

synapses andneuromuscularjunctionswithonlytwoneurites(ortwowires).Thismorphologycanbetakenintoaccountbynormalizingeachneuron-to-neuronandneuron-to-muscleconnectionbytheaveragenumberof synapses per neurite (

29.3 or 58.6 synapses per neurondividedbetweentwoneurites).Sensoryneurons,ontheotherhand,typically send one specialized neurite to the sensory organ (34), which, with a few exceptions, does not make synapses with otherneuronsormuscles.Thuseachsensoryfixedpoint,byconstruction,connects to a neuron through a dedicated wire and needs not benormalized. An alternative way to incorporate this neuronal mor-phologyisbyusinga‘‘shared-wire’’model(Fig.1

EInset

),whichwillbe introduced later.We find the optimal neuronal placement that minimizes the wiring cost function defined by Eqs.

1–3

. Initially, we assume thatthe cost of connecting two neurons increases as the square of thedistance between them (

2 in Eqs.

2

and

3

). The quadratic costfunctioncanbeminimizedanalyticallyandthepositionofneuronalcell bodies is given by (26, 29, 30):

x

Q

1

Ss

1

Mm

Q

ij

ij

1

p

A

ip

k

S

ik

1

l

M

il

1

A

ij

.

[5]

Minimization of the quadratic cost function is mathematicallyidentical to finding the equilibrium placement of objects connected with elastic rubber bands (minimum elastic energy of rubber bands with zero length at rest).

Comparison of the Minimum-Wiring Placement with ActualLayout

Using the complete connectivity diagram of the

C. elegans

nervoussystem, we calculate neuron positions that minimize the quadraticcost function (

2 in Eqs.

2

and

3

, 1

4 to be consideredlater). Data sets are available at http:

www.wormatlas.org

handbook

nshandbook.htm

nswiring.htm. Fig. 1

C

shows optimalneuronallayoutintheone-dimensionalworm,whereneuronsfromthe same ganglion are represented by the same color, offset vertically for clarity.Wecomparethisresulttoactuallocationsofneuronalcellbodiesprojected into one dimension along the anterior–posterior axis of the worm (Fig. 1

B

). Neurons belonging to the same ganglia areclustered (positioned near each other) in the actual layout. Wiring-cost minimization predicts somewhat more dispersed clusters of neurons located in the anterior two-thirds of the worm and noclustering for neurons in the tail ganglia (see

Ganglia Distribution

in

Supporting Text

and Fig. 5, which are published as supportinginformation on the PNAS web site). Later we will discuss possiblecauses for such discrepancies. Because a large number of thesensory organs are located in the tip of the head (34), aggregationof neurons in the anterior region of the animal is consistent withminimization of cost required to connect these sensors (20). Thepredicted anterior–posterior order of the first five ganglia, asdefined by the median of neuron positions, agrees with the actualorder. The actual ganglia ordering was previously obtained byCherniak via brute force enumeration of all possible permutations(20).However,asmentionedpreviously,themethodusedtoobtainCherniak’s result cannot be applied at the level of individualneurons.Next, we plot predicted positions of individual neurons as afunction of actual positions in the worm (Fig. 2). Neuron locationsin the animals are scaled between 0 and 1, where 0 is the head and1 is the tail. The majority of neurons in the network lie along thediagonal of the plot, where predicted position equals actual posi-

Fig. 1.

Actual and predicted neuronal cell body positions. (

A

) Neuronallayout in the worm, pharyngeal neurons excluded. Each color denotes aganglion.(

B

)Actualplacementofneuronalcellbodiesprojectedontoanterior–posterioraxis.Circlesofthesamecolorrepresentcellbodiesbelongingtothesame ganglion. Plots for each ganglion are offset vertically to aid the eye.(

Inset

) Schematic example of biological network of three neurons and twoﬁxedpoints:s,sensoryending;m,muscle.Theblueneuronisbipolar,withoneneuriteattachingtothesensoryendingandtheothermakingtwoexcitatorysynapses onto the red neuron and one excitatory synapse onto the greenneuron (circle represents the cell body). The red neuron makes an inhibitorysynapse onto the blue neuron (line ending in circle) and a gap junction (bar)with the green neuron. The green neuron has a neuromuscular junction. (

C

)Neuronal layout predicted from minimization of quadratic wiring cost indedicated-wire model. (

Inset

) Weighted dedicated-wire model. Each blacklineorwirecorrespondstoonesynapseindependentofpolarity(excitatoryvs.inhibitory), directionality, or modality (chemical vs. gap). (

D

) Neuronal layoutpredicted from the binary dedicated-wire model. (

Inset

) Binary dedicated-wire model. Each wire corresponds to a synaptic connection neglecting amultiplicity of synapses. (

E

) Neuronal layout predicted from the shared-wiremodel. (

Inset

) Shared-wire model. Neurons are represented as nonbranchingwires (colored lines), which must overlap if a synaptic connection exists. Cellbody location on the wire can be calculated by using different rules.

4724

www.pnas.org

cgi

doi

10.1073

pnas.0506806103 Chen

et al

.

tion. On average, the cost-minimized neuron is located at 9.71% of the worm body length away from the actual location. Half of thepredicted positions lie within 5.10% of their actual layout. Thediscrepancy between the mean and median of the distributionindicates that a small number of neurons account for the largestdeviations. These ‘‘outlier’’ neurons will be analyzed further in thefollowing sections.To evaluate how well wiring-cost minimization predicts neuronposition,wecompareourresultsagainstanullhypothesisthatmorerelated neurons are positioned closer to each other. In

C. elegans

,the lineages of individual cells are reproducible and have been fullymapped (36, 37). By assuming that each cell division in the lineagetree reduces ‘‘relatedness’’ by one unit, we found the ‘‘relatedness’’matrixbetweenanytwoneuronsinthenervoussystem(see

Lineage Analysis

in

Supporting Text

). Then we minimized the quadratic costfunction with coefficients given by the ‘‘relatedness’’ matrix bysubstituting nonexistent external connection with a uniform repul-sive force (26). The mean deviation from actual is 26.1%, a worseprediction than that generated by wiring minimization.We also evaluate how well cost minimization is able to predictneuron position by comparing our results to a neuronal layoutgenerated at random from a uniform distribution. Randomlyplaced neurons have a mean deviation from the actual position34.6% and the median of 30.9%, both much greater than wire-minimized placement. Provided the distribution of the mean isGaussian, the probability of obtaining an average deviation for 279neurons better than the results from cost minimization is 10

68

.Therefore, wiring-cost minimization is a meaningful description of therelationshipbetweenneuronalarrangementandconnectivityinthe worm.Despite reasonable agreement between predicted and actuallayout, the total wiring cost of the actual network is almost fourtimes greater than that of the optimized solution. Does this dis-crepancy arise from the cost of internal or external connections?The cost from neuron-to-neuron connections (

C

int

from Eqs.

1

and

2

) makes up 91.7% of total cost in the actual worm. This value is6.24greaterthantheinternalcostfromthepredictedlayout.Ontheotherhand,theratioofactualtopredictedexternalcosts(

C

ext

fromEqs.

1

and

3

) is significantly lower at 0.93. This result suggests thatneurons in the actual layout are well positioned to minimizeconnections to external structures but are not fully optimized forneuron-to-neuron connections.However, the total cost of the actual placement is still four timeslessthanthatoftherandomlygeneratedplacement.Inotherwords,thetotalcostratioofoptimizedtoactualtorandomlayoutis1:4:16.Provided the distribution of cost for a random placement isGaussian, the probability of obtaining a cost equal to or lower thanthe actual cost is 10

33

. Again, the significance of this metricsuggests that the wiring-minimization approach gives nontrivialresults.

Robustness of Optimization Results to Small Variationsof Parameters

To determine the robustness of the wire-minimized solution, weexplored several aspects of the cost function and assessed theirimpact on the ability to predict neuronal layout.First, we analyze the sensitivity of the wire-minimized layout tothe normalization coefficient

and the exponent

. As mentioned,our cost formulation accounts for multiple synapses on a givenneurite by normalizing connection weights by the average numberofsynapsesperneurite(

29.3).Wetesthowthepredictedlayoutchanges by varying

between 1 and 45. Because the choice of thequadratic form of the cost function may seem arbitrary, we also varied the power of wire length in the cost function,

in Eqs.

2

and

3

between values of 1 and 4. As argued previously, the wiring costislikelytoscalesupralinearly(

1)withdistancebetweenneurons(26).Ifso,theminimizationproblemisconvexandcanbeefficientlysolved numerically. The lowest mean deviation, 9.71%, is achievedby using the cost function with normalization coefficient

27 andexponent

2 (see

General Power-Law Cost Function

in

SupportingText

and Fig. 6, which are published as supporting information onthe PNAS web site). Interestingly, these values are close to thosechosen from biological considerations and validate the quadraticcost function.Second, we test the importance of synaptic multiplicity betweenneurons. Instead of a wire dedicated to each synapse between cells(Fig. 1

C Inset

), we use a single wire to connect a given pair of neurons regardless of the number of synapses (Fig. 1

D Inset

). Inother words, we minimize the quadratic cost function with a binaryconnection matrix (only 0 or 1 elements in the matrix

A

from Eq.

2

). Using

2, the lowest mean deviation between predicted andactual position (9.82%) is higher than the result from a synapse-numberweightedcostfunctionandwasfoundat

8.Intheactual worm, the average number of synaptic partners (as opposed toindividual synapses) per neurite is 12.2, close to the optimal valueof

obtained from the binary connection matrix.To summarize, we find that various reasonable cost functionspredict neuronal placement incomparably better than the randomone. Although mean deviations vary somewhat between differentcost functions, they are not far from the best known solution. Thusthewirelengthminimizationapproachisratherrobust.Becausethequadraticcostfunctioncanbesolvedexactlyandisreasonablycloseto the best-known solution, it may serve as the reference predictedlayout. Although the predicted placement is only approximatelycorrect, we recall that the problem was solved in one dimension.Suchdimensionalityreductionmayintroduceerrorsontheorderof the inverse aspect ratio of the worm, just under 10%. Because themeandeviationswereportapproachthisrange,wiringoptimizationresults are encouraging.

What Causes Discrepancies Between Predicted and ActualNeuronal Layouts?

Several reasons may account for the deviation between positionspredictedbywiring-cost-minimizedandactualneuronpositions.(

i

)The actual system is not fully optimized. (

ii

) The wiring diagram isstill somewhat incomplete. (

iii

) The wiring cost function does notfully represent costs associated with neuronal placement, or con-straintsotherthanconnectivityneedtobetakenintoconsideration. Although reason

i

remains a possibility, its exploration lies beyondthe framework of the optimization approach (38). Reason

ii

can be

Fig. 2.

Neuron positions predicted by the quadratic dedicated-wire modelvs. actual neuron positions. (

Upper

) Positions are normalized by the wormbody length (0

head; 1

tail). Perfect predictions fall on the diagonal.Circlesofthesamecolorrepresentcellbodiesbelongingtothesameganglion.Threeclassesofpioneerneuronsarelabeled.(

Lower

)Schematicsdepictingtheprogression of pioneer neurons during worm development. Arrows indicatedirection of neurite growth.

Chen

et al

. PNAS

March 21, 2006

vol. 103

no. 12

4725

N E U R O S C I E N C E

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

© Copyright 2015 Scribd Inc.

Language

Choose the language in which you want to experience Scribd:

Sign in with Facebook

Sorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

or

Password Reset Email Sent

Join with Facebook

Sorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

or

By joining, you agree to our

read free for two weeks

Unlimited access to more than

one million books

one million books

Personalized recommendations

based on books you love

based on books you love

Syncing across all your devices

Join with Facebook

or Join with emailSorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

Already a member? Sign in.

By joining, you agree to our

to download

Unlimited access to more than

one million books

one million books

Personalized recommendations

based on books you love

based on books you love

Syncing across all your devices

Continue with Facebook

Sign inJoin with emailSorry, we are unable to log you in via Facebook at this time. Please try again later.

By joining, you agree to our

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd