Computational Neuroscience: Building a mathematical model of the brain
Automatic leveraging of information in a hippocampal neuron database to generate mathematical models should help foster interactions between experimental and computational neuroscientists.
- Division of Clinical and Computational Neuroscience, Krembil Brain Institute, University Health Network and Department of Physiology, University of Toronto, Canada
The amount of data that can be gathered about the human brain has been growing exponentially in recent years, but it could be argued that relatively little progress has been made in actually understanding how the brain works. While there may be sociological and philosophical reasons for this lack of progress (see, for example, Thompson, 2021), a main reason is the low level of interactions between the experimental and theoretical/modeling communities in neuroscience (Marder, 2015). Bridging this divide will be difficult because it requires researchers on both sides to leave their comfort zones and learn more about each other’s work, including the constraints that both sides work under. If not, there is a risk that the results of beautiful experiments, or the outputs of thoughtful models, will not be fully appreciated by everyone working in that particular field of neuroscience.
Where does one begin when trying to build a mathematical model of a biological system? In the case of the brain, besides deciding which region of the brain one wants to model and being clear about the goals of the study (Shou et al., 2015), choices need to be made about the level of abstraction. Understanding how the brain works, in both health and disease, requires studying neural circuits at the level of the cell, particularly as neurological diseases are cell-specific (see, for example, Gallo et al., 2020). Furthermore, many studies have made it abundantly clear that circuit function cannot be understood without a greater understanding of the individual cell types making up the circuit (see, for example, Daur et al., 2016 regarding the stomatogastric nervous system). Indeed, when considering a theoretical basis for biology, it is often argued that the correct level of abstraction is the cell (Brenner, 2010).
Hippocampome.org is a database that contains a vast amount of information about the different types of neuronal cells found in the hippocampus – a region of the brain that has major roles in learning and memory – in rodents. The first version of the database contained information on 122 types of neuronal cells based on the shapes of their axons and dendrites, their main neurotransmitters, and various molecular and biophysical properties (Wheeler et al., 2015). Subsequent versions of the database included information on a range of topics including the physiology of the synapses that connect neurons and the electrical behaviour of various neurons.
Now, in eLife, Giorgio Ascoli and colleagues at George Mason University – including Diek Wheeler as first author – present Hippocampome.org v2.0, which enables users to automatically build models that can be used to simulate the electrical behaviour of networks of neurons (Wheeler et al., 2024). Moreover, Hippocampome.org v2.0 includes data and information on over 50 new neuron types. Now, with the click of a button, a user can choose the region (or regions) of the hippocampus they are interested in and the cell types they would like to include in their model, and Hippocampome.org v2.0 will build a model in which the properties of the individual cells and their connections are based on experimental data from multiple research papers. Furthermore, the data come with important metadata (such as the age of the animals), so users can evaluate the values of the various parameters that are included in any model. Indeed, the richness of the data is such that some researchers have been able to make discoveries by applying data-mining techniques to Hippocampome.org (Sanchez-Aguilera et al., 2021).
Deciding how much detail to include in a model is a non-trivial consideration, but it is naturally dependent on the question being asked and the availability of experimental data. Choosing to represent each neuron by a single compartment, rather than including its structure and properties, and using a relatively simple mathematical model called an Izhikevich model (Izhikevich, 2003) to describe the spiking process is both sensible and necessary. Izhikevich models can encompass many, if not all, of the firing properties of biological cells, and although more complex neuron models exist – such as conductance-based models that include ion-channel types – they would make an already complex ‘automated network model building’ challenge even more complex.
With Hippocampome.org v2.0 in hand, it is now possible to start bridging the gap between theory and experiment without having to make a heroic effort to parse the experimental literature. That is, theoretical ’bones’ can be given experimental ‘meat’, as Wheeler et al. demonstrate in simulations of grid cells. Essentially, this resource can be used to bind hypothesis-driven and data-driven modeling (Eriksson et al., 2022).
To truly understand how the brain works, and to help the many individuals suffering from brain disorders, there needs to be stronger collaborations between experimentalists and modellers. This new resource developed by Wheeler et al. provides a practical path towards this outcome.
References
-
Sequences and consequencesPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 365:207–212.https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0221
-
The complexity of small circuits: the stomatogastric nervous systemCurrent Opinion in Neurobiology 41:1–7.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2016.07.005
-
Simple model of spiking neuronsIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 14:1569–1572.https://doi.org/10.1109/TNN.2003.820440
-
Forms of explanation and understanding for neuroscience and artificial intelligenceJournal of Neurophysiology 126:1860–1874.https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00195.2021
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2024, Skinner
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 3,287
- views
-
- 327
- downloads
-
- 0
- 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)
Computational Neuroscience: Building a mathematical model of the brain
eLife 13:e96231.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.96231
Further reading
-
- Neuroscience
Most visual tasks involve looking for specific object features. But we also often perform property-based tasks where we look for specific property in an image, such as finding an odd item, deciding if two items are same, or if an object has symmetry. How do we solve such tasks? These tasks do not fit into standard models of decision making because their underlying feature space and decision process is unclear. Using well-known principles governing multiple object representations, we show that displays with repeating elements can be distinguished from heterogeneous displays using a property we define as visual homogeneity. In behavior, visual homogeneity predicted response times on visual search, same-different and symmetry tasks. Brain imaging during visual search and symmetry tasks revealed that visual homogeneity was localized to a region in the object-selective cortex. Thus, property-based visual tasks are solved in a localized region in the brain by computing visual homogeneity.
-
- Neuroscience
Electrophysiology has proven invaluable to record neural activity, and the development of Neuropixels probes dramatically increased the number of recorded neurons. These probes are often implanted acutely, but acute recordings cannot be performed in freely moving animals and the recorded neurons cannot be tracked across days. To study key behaviors such as navigation, learning, and memory formation, the probes must be implanted chronically. An ideal chronic implant should (1) allow stable recordings of neurons for weeks; (2) allow reuse of the probes after explantation; (3) be light enough for use in mice. Here, we present the ‘Apollo Implant’, an open-source and editable device that meets these criteria and accommodates up to two Neuropixels 1.0 or 2.0 probes. The implant comprises a ‘payload’ module which is attached to the probe and is recoverable, and a ‘docking’ module which is cemented to the skull. The design is adjustable, making it easy to change the distance between probes, the angle of insertion, and the depth of insertion. We tested the implant across eight labs in head-fixed mice, freely moving mice, and freely moving rats. The number of neurons recorded across days was stable, even after repeated implantations of the same probe. The Apollo implant provides an inexpensive, lightweight, and flexible solution for reusable chronic Neuropixels recordings.
