1. Neuroscience
Download icon

Whole brain comparative anatomy using connectivity blueprints

Tools and Resources
  • Cited 53
  • Views 4,832
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2018;7:e35237 doi: 10.7554/eLife.35237

Abstract

Comparing the brains of related species faces the challenges of establishing homologies whilst accommodating evolutionary specializations. Here we propose a general framework for understanding similarities and differences between the brains of primates. The approach uses white matter blueprints of the whole cortex based on a set of white matter tracts that can be anatomically matched across species. The blueprints provide a common reference space that allows us to navigate between brains of different species, identify homologous cortical areas, or to transform whole cortical maps from one species to the other. Specializations are cast within this framework as deviations between the species' blueprints. We illustrate how this approach can be used to compare human and macaque brains.

Data availability

The human diffusion MRI data was obtained from the Human Connectome Project (www.humanconnectome.org.). Tractography protocols for building the blueprints, code, and results are available for download from Gitlab at https://git.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/rmars/comparing-connectivity-blueprints.git.

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Rogier B Mars

    Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    rogier.mars@psy.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6302-8631
  2. Stamatios N Sotiropoulos

    Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4735-5776
  3. Richard E Passingham

    Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jerome Sallet

    Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7878-0209
  5. Lennart M Verhagen

    Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Alexandre A Khrapitchev

    Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7616-6635
  7. Nicola Sibson

    Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Saad Jbabdi

    Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/N019814/1)

  • Rogier B Mars

Medical Research Council (MR/L009013/1)

  • Saad Jbabdi

Wellcome (203139/Z/16/Z)

  • Rogier B Mars
  • Jerome Sallet
  • Saad Jbabdi

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (452-­13-­015)

  • Rogier B Mars

Cancer Research UK (C5255/A15935)

  • Alexandre A Khrapitchev
  • Nicola Sibson

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Klaas Enno Stephan, University of Zurich and ETH Zurich, Switzerland

Publication history

  1. Received: January 19, 2018
  2. Accepted: May 7, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 11, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 1, 2018 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2018, Mars 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

  • 4,832
    Page views
  • 657
    Downloads
  • 53
    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)

  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Lorenz Deserno et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Dopamine is implicated in representing model-free (MF) reward prediction errors a as well as influencing model-based (MB) credit assignment and choice. Putative cooperative interactions between MB and MF systems include a guidance of MF credit assignment by MB inference. Here, we used a double-blind, placebo-controlled, within-subjects design to test an hypothesis that enhancing dopamine levels boosts the guidance of MF credit assignment by MB inference. In line with this, we found that levodopa enhanced guidance of MF credit assignment by MB inference, without impacting MF and MB influences directly. This drug effect correlated negatively with a dopamine-dependent change in purely MB credit assignment, possibly reflecting a trade-off between these two MB components of behavioural control. Our findings of a dopamine boost in MB inference guidance of MF learning highlight a novel DA influence on MB-MF cooperative interactions.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Qiuling Li et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Although many genes are known to influence sleep, when and how they impact sleep-regulatory circuits remain ill-defined. Here, we show that insomniac (inc), a conserved adaptor for the autism-associated Cul3 ubiquitin ligase, acts in a restricted period of neuronal development to impact sleep in adult Drosophila. The loss of inc causes structural and functional alterations within the mushroom body (MB), a center for sensory integration, associative learning, and sleep regulation. In inc mutants, MB neurons are produced in excess, develop anatomical defects that impede circuit assembly, and are unable to promote sleep when activated in adulthood. Our findings link neurogenesis and postmitotic development of sleep-regulatory neurons to their adult function and suggest that developmental perturbations of circuits that couple sensory inputs and sleep may underlie sleep dysfunction in neurodevelopmental disorders.