A stochastic neuronal model predicts random search behaviors at multiple spatial scales in C. elegans

  1. William M Roberts
  2. Steven B Augustine
  3. Kristy J Lawton
  4. Theodore H Lindsay
  5. Tod R Thiele
  6. Eduardo J Izquierdo
  7. Serge Faumont
  8. Rebecca A Lindsay
  9. Matthew Cale Britton
  10. Navin Pokala
  11. Cornelia I Bargmann
  12. Shawn R Lockery  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Oregon, United States
  2. University of Pennsylvania, United States
  3. Reed College, United States
  4. California Institute of Technology, United States
  5. University of Toronto, Canada
  6. Indiana University, United States
  7. Children's Hospital Los Angeles, United States
  8. University of Minnesota, United States
  9. New York Institiute of Technology, United States
  10. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Rockefeller University, United States

Abstract

Random search is a behavioral strategy used by organisms from bacteria to humans to locate food that is randomly distributed and undetectable at a distance. We investigated this behavior in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, an organism with a small, well-described nervous system. Here we formulate a mathematical model of random search abstracted from the C. elegans connectome and fit to a large-scale kinematic analysis of C. elegans behavior at submicron resolution. The model predicts behavioral effects of neuronal ablations and genetic perturbations, as well as unexpected aspects of wild type behavior. The predictive success of the model indicates that random search in C. elegans can be understood in terms of a neuronal flip-flop circuit involving reciprocal inhibition between two populations of stochastic neurons. Our findings establish a unified theoretical framework for understanding C. elegans locomotion and a testable neuronal model of random search that can be applied to other organisms.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. William M Roberts

    Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Steven B Augustine

    School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Kristy J Lawton

    Biology Department, Reed College, Portland, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Theodore H Lindsay

    Division of biology and biological engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Tod R Thiele

    Department of Biological Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Eduardo J Izquierdo

    Cognitive Science Program, Indiana University, Bloomington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Serge Faumont

    Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Rebecca A Lindsay

    Department of Ophthalmology, The Vision Center, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Matthew Cale Britton

    Department of Neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Navin Pokala

    Department of Life Sciences, New York Institiute of Technology, Old Westbury, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Cornelia I Bargmann

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Rockefeller University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Shawn R Lockery

    Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    For correspondence
    shawn@uoregon.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2016, Roberts et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 6,335
    views
  • 1,331
    downloads
  • 87
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. William M Roberts
  2. Steven B Augustine
  3. Kristy J Lawton
  4. Theodore H Lindsay
  5. Tod R Thiele
  6. Eduardo J Izquierdo
  7. Serge Faumont
  8. Rebecca A Lindsay
  9. Matthew Cale Britton
  10. Navin Pokala
  11. Cornelia I Bargmann
  12. Shawn R Lockery
(2016)
A stochastic neuronal model predicts random search behaviors at multiple spatial scales in C. elegans
eLife 5:e12572.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12572

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12572

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Shinichi Kawaguchi, Xin Xu ... Toshie Kai
    Research Article

    Protein–protein interactions are fundamental to understanding the molecular functions and regulation of proteins. Despite the availability of extensive databases, many interactions remain uncharacterized due to the labor-intensive nature of experimental validation. In this study, we utilized the AlphaFold2 program to predict interactions among proteins localized in the nuage, a germline-specific non-membrane organelle essential for piRNA biogenesis in Drosophila. We screened 20 nuage proteins for 1:1 interactions and predicted dimer structures. Among these, five represented novel interaction candidates. Three pairs, including Spn-E_Squ, were verified by co-immunoprecipitation. Disruption of the salt bridges at the Spn-E_Squ interface confirmed their functional importance, underscoring the predictive model’s accuracy. We extended our analysis to include interactions between three representative nuage components—Vas, Squ, and Tej—and approximately 430 oogenesis-related proteins. Co-immunoprecipitation verified interactions for three pairs: Mei-W68_Squ, CSN3_Squ, and Pka-C1_Tej. Furthermore, we screened the majority of Drosophila proteins (~12,000) for potential interaction with the Piwi protein, a central player in the piRNA pathway, identifying 164 pairs as potential binding partners. This in silico approach not only efficiently identifies potential interaction partners but also significantly bridges the gap by facilitating the integration of bioinformatics and experimental biology.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Brian DePasquale, Carlos D Brody, Jonathan W Pillow
    Research Article Updated

    Accumulating evidence to make decisions is a core cognitive function. Previous studies have tended to estimate accumulation using either neural or behavioral data alone. Here, we develop a unified framework for modeling stimulus-driven behavior and multi-neuron activity simultaneously. We applied our method to choices and neural recordings from three rat brain regions—the posterior parietal cortex (PPC), the frontal orienting fields (FOF), and the anterior-dorsal striatum (ADS)—while subjects performed a pulse-based accumulation task. Each region was best described by a distinct accumulation model, which all differed from the model that best described the animal’s choices. FOF activity was consistent with an accumulator where early evidence was favored while the ADS reflected near perfect accumulation. Neural responses within an accumulation framework unveiled a distinct association between each brain region and choice. Choices were better predicted from all regions using a comprehensive, accumulation-based framework and different brain regions were found to differentially reflect choice-related accumulation signals: FOF and ADS both reflected choice but ADS showed more instances of decision vacillation. Previous studies relating neural data to behaviorally inferred accumulation dynamics have implicitly assumed that individual brain regions reflect the whole-animal level accumulator. Our results suggest that different brain regions represent accumulated evidence in dramatically different ways and that accumulation at the whole-animal level may be constructed from a variety of neural-level accumulators.