Neuroswarm: A Methodology to Explore the Constraints that Function Imposes on Simulation Parameters in Large-Scale Networks of Biological Neurons

  • David Gomez-Cabrero
  • Salva Ardid
  • Maria Cano-Colino
  • Jesper Tegnér
  • Albert Compte
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Mechanobiology, Tissue Engineering and Biomaterials book series (SMTEB, volume 17)

Abstract

Candidate mechanisms of brain function can potentially be identified using biologically detailed computational models. A critical question that arises from the construction and analysis of such models is whether a particular set of parameters is unique or whether multiple different solutions exist, each capable of reproducing some relevant phenomenology. Addressing this issue is difficult, and systematic procedures have been proposed only recently, targeting small systems such as single neurons or small neural circuits [16] (Marder and Taylor, Nat Neurosci 14:133–138, 2011), [1] (Achard and De Schutter, PLoS Comput Biol 2:e94, 2006). However, how to develop a methodology to address the problem of non-uniqueness of parameters in large-scale biological networks is yet to be developed. Here, we describe a computational strategy to explicitly approach this issue on large-scale neural network models, which has been successfully applied to computational models of working memory (WM) and selective attention [2] (Ardid, J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 30:2856–2870, 2010), [3] (Cano-Colino et al., Cereb Cortex 24:2449–2463, 2014). To illustrate the approach, we show in this chapter how our strategy applies to the problem of identifying different mechanisms underlying visuospatial WM. We use a well-established biological neural circuit model in the literature [6] (Compte et al., Cereb. Cortex 10:910–923, 2000) as a reference point, which we then perturb by using the Swarm Optimization Algorithm. This algorithm explores the space of biologically unconstrained parameters in the model under the constraint of preserving a solution defined here as a network in which the activity of model neurons mimics the properties of neurons in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) of monkeys performing a visuospatial WM task [7] (Funahashi et al., J Neurophysiol 61:331–349, 1989). The results are: (1) identification of a set of model solutions, composed of alternative and, in principle, feasible and sufficient mechanisms generating WM function in a cortical network. In particular, we found that the dynamics of interneurons play a main role in distinguishing among potential circuit candidates. Secondly we uncovered compensatory mechanisms in a subset of the parameters in the model. In essence, the compensatory mechanisms we observe in the different solutions are based on correlations between sets of parameters that shift the local Excitatory/Inhibitory balance in opposite directions. In summary, our approach is able to identify distinct mechanisms underlying a same function, as well as to propose a dynamic solution to the problem of fine-tuning. Our results from the proposed workflow would be strengthened by additional biological experiments aimed to refine the validity of the results.

Keywords

Prefrontal cortex Workflow Ensemble analysis Working memory model Neuroscience Computational biology 

References

  1. 1.
    Achard, P., De Schutter, E.: Complex parameter landscape for a complex neuron model. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2(7), e94 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ardid, S., Wang, X.J., Gomez-Cabrero, D., Compte, A.: Reconciling coherent oscillation with modulation of irregular spiking activity in selective attention: gamma-range synchronization between sensory and executive cortical areas. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 30(8), 2856–2870 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cano-Colino, M., Almeida, R., Gomez-Cabrero, D., Artigas, F. Compte, A.: Serotonin regulates performance nonmonotonically in a spatial working memory network. Cereb. Cortex (New York, N.Y.:1991) 24(9), 2449–2463 (2014). doi:10.1093/cercor/bht096
  4. 4.
    Cedersund, G., Samuelsson, O., Ball, G., Tegnér, J., Gomez-Cabrero, D.: Optimization in biology parameter estimation and the associated optimization problem. In: Uncertainty in Biology, A Computational Modeling Approach. Springer, Chem (2016, this volume)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cedersund, G.: Prediction uncertainty estimation despite unidentifiability: an overview of recent developments. In: Uncertainty in Biology, A Computational Modeling Approach. Springer, Chem (2016, this volume)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Compte, A., Brunel, N., Goldman-Rakic, P.S., Wang, X.J.: Synaptic mechanisms and network dynamics underlying spatial working memory in a cortical network model. Cereb. Cortex 10(9), 910–923 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Funahashi, S., Bruce, C.J., Goldman-Rakic, P.S.: Mnemonic coding of visual space in the monkey’s dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 61(2), 331–349 (1989)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gomez-Cabrero, D., Compte, A., Tegnér, J.: Workflow for generating competing hypothesis from models with parameter uncertainty. Interf. Focus 1(3), 438–449 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hodgkin, A.L.: Chance and Design in Electrophysiology: An informal account of certain experiments on nerve carried out between 1934 and 1952. J. Physiol. 263(I), 1–21 (1976)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hodgkin, A.L., Huxley, A.F.: Currents carried by sodium and potassium ions through the membrane of the giant axon of Loligo. J. Physiol. 116, 449–472 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hug, S., Schmidl, D., Bo Li, W., Greiter, M.B., Theis, F.J.: Bayesian model selection methods and their application to biological ODE systems. In: Uncertainty in Biology, A Computational Modeling Approach. Springer, Chem (2016, this volume)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kennedy, J., Eberhart, R.: Particle swarm optimization. In: IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks Proceedings, Vols. 1–6, 1942–1948 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kirk, P., Silk, D., Stumpf, M.P.H.: Reverse engineering under uncertainty. In: Uncertainty in Biology, A Computational Modeling Approach. Springer, Chem (2016, this volume)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lejon, A., Samaey, G.: Stochastic modeling and simulation methods for biological processes: overview. In: Uncertainty in Biology, A Computational Modeling Approach. Springer, Chem (2016, this volume)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mannakee, B.K., Ragsdale, A.P., Transtrum, M.K., Gutenkunst, R.N.: Sloppiness and the geometry of parameter space. In: Uncertainty in Biology, A Computational Modeling Approach. Springer, Chem (2016, this volume)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marder, E., Taylor, A.L.: Multiple models to capture the variability in biological neurons and networks. Nat. Neurosci. 14(2), 133–138 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marder, E., Tobin, A.E., Grashow, R.: How tightly tuned are network parameters? Insight from computational and experimental studies in small rhythmic motor networks. Progr. Brain Res. 165, 193–200 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Munkres, J.R.: Topology, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poli, R.: Analysis of the publications on the applications of particle swarm optimisation. J. Artif. Evol. Appl. 2008, 1–10 (2008). doi:10.1155/2008/685175
  20. 20.
    Prinz, A.A., Billimoria, C.P., Marder, E.: Alternative to hand-tuning conductance based models: construction and analysis of databases of model neurons. J. Neurophysiol. 90(6), 3998–4015 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prinz, A.A., Bucher, D., Marder, E.: Similar network activity from disparate circuit parameters. Nat. Neurosci. 7(12), 1345–1352 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sunnåker, M., Stelling, J.: Model extension and model selection. In: Uncertainty in Biology, A Computational Modeling Approach. Springer, Chem (2016, this volume)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tucker, W.: Interval methods. In: Uncertainty in Biology, A Computational Modeling Approach. Springer, Chem (2016, this volume)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tuckwell, H.: Introduction to Theoretical Neurobiology (2 vols.). Cambridge Studies in Mathematical Biology. Cambrige University Press, Cambrige (1988)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Geit, W., Achard, P., De Schutter, E.: Neurofitter: a parameter tuning package for a wide range of electrophysiological neuron models. Front. Neuroinform. 1, 1 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Geit, W., De Schutter, E., Achard, P.: Automated neuron model optimization techniques: a review. Biol. Cybern. 99(4–5), 241–251 (2008)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Schepdael, A., Carlier, A., Geris, L.: Sensitivity analysis by design of experiments. In: Uncertainty in Biology, A Computational Modeling Approach. Springer, Chem (2016, this volume)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Gomez-Cabrero
    • 1
    • 2
  • Salva Ardid
    • 2
    • 3
  • Maria Cano-Colino
    • 2
    • 4
  • Jesper Tegnér
    • 1
  • Albert Compte
    • 2
  1. 1.Unit of Computational Medicine, Center for Molecular Medicine, Department of MedicineKarolinska InstitutetSolnaSweden
  2. 2.Institut d’Investigacions Biomediques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS)BarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Center for Computational Neuroscience and Neural Technology (CompNet), Department of Mathematics and StatisticsBoston UniversityBostonUSA
  4. 4.Champalimaud Neuroscience ProgrammeChampalimaud Centre for the UnknownLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations