1. Neuroscience
Download icon

Nanoconnectomic upper bound on the variability of synaptic plasticity

  1. Thomas M Bartol  Is a corresponding author
  2. Cailey Bromer
  3. Justin P Kinney
  4. Micheal A Chirillo
  5. Jennifer N Bourne
  6. Kristen M Harris
  7. Terrence J Sejnowski
  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, United States
  2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States
  3. The University of Texas at Austin, United States
  4. University of Colorado Denver, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 95
  • Views 30,496
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2015;4:e10778 doi: 10.7554/eLife.10778

Abstract

Information in a computer is quantified by the number of bits that can be stored and recovered. An important question about the brain is how much information can be stored at a synapse through synaptic plasticity, which depends on the history of probabilistic synaptic activity. The strong correlation between size and efficacy of a synapse allowed us to estimate the variability of synaptic plasticity. In an EM reconstruction of hippocampal neuropil we found single axons making two or more synaptic contacts onto the same dendrites, having shared histories of presynaptic and postsynaptic activity. The spine heads and neck diameters, but not neck lengths, of these pairs were nearly identical in size. We found that there is a minimum of 26 distinguishable synaptic strengths, corresponding to storing 4.7 bits of information at each synapse. Because of stochastic variability of synaptic activation the observed precision requires averaging activity over several minutes.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Thomas M Bartol

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    For correspondence
    bartol@salk.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Cailey Bromer

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Justin P Kinney

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Micheal A Chirillo

    Center for Learning and Memory, Department of Neuroscience, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jennifer N Bourne

    University of Colorado Denver, Denver, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Kristen M Harris

    Center for Learning and Memory, Department of Neuroscience, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Terrence J Sejnowski

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Sacha B Nelson, Brandeis University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: August 11, 2015
  2. Accepted: November 29, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 30, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 20, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Bartol 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

  • 30,496
    Page views
  • 3,022
    Downloads
  • 95
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Lilach Avitan et al.
    Short Report

    The immature brain is highly spontaneously active. Over development this activity must be integrated with emerging patterns of stimulus-evoked activity, but little is known about how this occurs. Here we investigated this question by recording spontaneous and evoked neural activity in the larval zebrafish tectum from 4 to 15 days post fertilisation. Correlations within spontaneous and evoked activity epochs were comparable over development, and their neural assemblies properties refined in similar ways. However both the similarity between evoked and spontaneous assemblies, and also the geometric distance between spontaneous and evoked patterns, decreased over development. At all stages of development evoked activity was of higher dimension than spontaneous activity. Thus spontaneous and evoked activity do not converge over development in this system, and these results do not support the hypothesis that spontaneous activity evolves to form a Bayesian prior for evoked activity.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Laura Morcom et al.
    Research Article

    The forebrain hemispheres are predominantly separated during embryogenesis by the interhemispheric fissure (IHF). Radial astroglia remodel the IHF to form a continuous substrate between the hemispheres for midline crossing of the corpus callosum (CC) and hippocampal commissure (HC). DCC and NTN1 are molecules that have an evolutionarily conserved function in commissural axon guidance. The CC and HC are absent in Dcc and Ntn1 knockout mice, while other commissures are only partially affected, suggesting an additional aetiology in forebrain commissure formation. Here, we find that these molecules play a critical role in regulating astroglial development and IHF remodelling during CC and HC formation. Human subjects with DCC mutations display disrupted IHF remodelling associated with CC and HC malformations. Thus, axon guidance molecules such as DCC and NTN1 first regulate the formation of a midline substrate for dorsal commissures prior to their role in regulating axonal growth and guidance across it.