Fast deep neural correspondence for tracking and identifying neurons in C. elegans using semi-synthetic training

  1. Xinwei Yu
  2. Matthew S Creamer
  3. Francesco Randi
  4. Anuj Kumar Sharma Ph.D.
  5. Scott W Linderman
  6. Andrew Michael Leifer  Is a corresponding author
  1. Princeton University, United States
  2. Stanford University, United States

Abstract

We present an automated method to track and identify neurons in C. elegans, called 'fast Deep Neural Correspondence' or fDNC, based on the transformer network architecture. The model is trained once on empirically derived semi-synthetic data and then predicts neural correspondence across held-out real animals. The same pre-trained model both tracks neurons across time and identifies corresponding neurons across individuals. Performance is evaluated against hand-annotated datasets, including NeuroPAL [1]. Using only position information, the method achieves 79.1% accuracy at tracking neurons within an individual and 64.1% accuracy at identifying neurons across individuals. Accuracy at identifying neurons across individuals is even higher (78.2%) when the model is applied to a dataset published by another group [2]. Accuracy reaches 74.7% on our dataset when using color information from NeuroPAL. Unlike previous methods, fDNC does not require straightening or transforming the animal into a canonical coordinate system. The method is fast and predicts correspondence in 10ms making it suitable for future real-time applications.

Data availability

All datasets generated as part of this work have been deposited in a public Open Science Foundation repository DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/T7DZU.

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Xinwei Yu

    Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Matthew S Creamer

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Francesco Randi

    Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Anuj Kumar Sharma Ph.D.

    Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5061-9731
  5. Scott W Linderman

    Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3878-9073
  6. Andrew Michael Leifer

    Department of Physics and Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    For correspondence
    leifer@princeton.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5362-5093

Funding

Simons Foundation (543003)

  • Andrew Michael Leifer

Simons Foundation (697092)

  • Scott W Linderman

National Science Foundation (IOS-184537)

  • Andrew Michael Leifer

National Science Foundation (PHY-1734030)

  • Andrew Michael Leifer

National Institutes of Health (R21NS101629)

  • Andrew Michael Leifer

National Institutes of Health (1R01NS113119)

  • Scott W Linderman

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Gordon J Berman, Emory University, United States

Version history

  1. Received: January 9, 2021
  2. Accepted: July 13, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: July 14, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 16, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Yu 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

  • 2,616
    Page views
  • 256
    Downloads
  • 11
    Citations

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

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. Xinwei Yu
  2. Matthew S Creamer
  3. Francesco Randi
  4. Anuj Kumar Sharma Ph.D.
  5. Scott W Linderman
  6. Andrew Michael Leifer
(2021)
Fast deep neural correspondence for tracking and identifying neurons in C. elegans using semi-synthetic training
eLife 10:e66410.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66410

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66410

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Kiwamu Kudo, Kamalini G Ranasinghe ... Srikantan S Nagarajan
    Research Article

    Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-β and misfolded tau proteins causing synaptic dysfunction, and progressive neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Altered neural oscillations have been consistently demonstrated in AD. However, the trajectories of abnormal neural oscillations in AD progression and their relationship to neurodegeneration and cognitive decline are unknown. Here, we deployed robust event-based sequencing models (EBMs) to investigate the trajectories of long-range and local neural synchrony across AD stages, estimated from resting-state magnetoencephalography. The increases in neural synchrony in the delta-theta band and the decreases in the alpha and beta bands showed progressive changes throughout the stages of the EBM. Decreases in alpha and beta band synchrony preceded both neurodegeneration and cognitive decline, indicating that frequency-specific neuronal synchrony abnormalities are early manifestations of AD pathophysiology. The long-range synchrony effects were greater than the local synchrony, indicating a greater sensitivity of connectivity metrics involving multiple regions of the brain. These results demonstrate the evolution of functional neuronal deficits along the sequence of AD progression.

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Luisa Fassi, Shachar Hochman ... Roi Cohen Kadosh
    Research Article

    In recent years, there has been debate about the effectiveness of treatments from different fields, such as neurostimulation, neurofeedback, brain training, and pharmacotherapy. This debate has been fuelled by contradictory and nuanced experimental findings. Notably, the effectiveness of a given treatment is commonly evaluated by comparing the effect of the active treatment versus the placebo on human health and/or behaviour. However, this approach neglects the individual’s subjective experience of the type of treatment she or he received in establishing treatment efficacy. Here, we show that individual differences in subjective treatment - the thought of receiving the active or placebo condition during an experiment - can explain variability in outcomes better than the actual treatment. We analysed four independent datasets (N = 387 participants), including clinical patients and healthy adults from different age groups who were exposed to different neurostimulation treatments (transcranial magnetic stimulation: Studies 1 and 2; transcranial direct current stimulation: Studies 3 and 4). Our findings show that the inclusion of subjective treatment can provide a better model fit either alone or in interaction with objective treatment (defined as the condition to which participants are assigned in the experiment). These results demonstrate the significant contribution of subjective experience in explaining the variability of clinical, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes. We advocate for existing and future studies in clinical and non-clinical research to start accounting for participants’ subjective beliefs and their interplay with objective treatment when assessing the efficacy of treatments. This approach will be crucial in providing a more accurate estimation of the treatment effect and its source, allowing the development of effective and reproducible interventions.