1. Computational and Systems Biology
  2. Neuroscience

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
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12572
Share this article
Cite this article
  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
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ronald L Calabrese, Emory University, United States

Version history

  1. Received: October 26, 2015
  2. Accepted: January 19, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 29, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 8, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: October 11, 2018 (version 3)

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

  • 6,075
    views
  • 1,316
    downloads
  • 78
    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

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology

    CoCoNuTs are a diverse subclass of Type IV restriction systems predicted to target RNA

    Ryan T Bell, Harutyun Sahakyan ... Eugene V Koonin
    Research Article

    A comprehensive census of McrBC systems, among the most common forms of prokaryotic Type IV restriction systems, followed by phylogenetic analysis, reveals their enormous abundance in diverse prokaryotes and a plethora of genomic associations. We focus on a previously uncharacterized branch, which we denote coiled-coil nuclease tandems (CoCoNuTs) for their salient features: the presence of extensive coiled-coil structures and tandem nucleases. The CoCoNuTs alone show extraordinary variety, with three distinct types and multiple subtypes. All CoCoNuTs contain domains predicted to interact with translation system components, such as OB-folds resembling the SmpB protein that binds bacterial transfer-messenger RNA (tmRNA), YTH-like domains that might recognize methylated tmRNA, tRNA, or rRNA, and RNA-binding Hsp70 chaperone homologs, along with RNases, such as HEPN domains, all suggesting that the CoCoNuTs target RNA. Many CoCoNuTs might additionally target DNA, via McrC nuclease homologs. Additional restriction systems, such as Type I RM, BREX, and Druantia Type III, are frequently encoded in the same predicted superoperons. In many of these superoperons, CoCoNuTs are likely regulated by cyclic nucleotides, possibly, RNA fragments with cyclic termini, that bind associated CARF (CRISPR-Associated Rossmann Fold) domains. We hypothesize that the CoCoNuTs, together with the ancillary restriction factors, employ an echeloned defense strategy analogous to that of Type III CRISPR-Cas systems, in which an immune response eliminating virus DNA and/or RNA is launched first, but then, if it fails, an abortive infection response leading to PCD/dormancy via host RNA cleavage takes over.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology

    Improved clinical data imputation via classical and quantum determinantal point processes

    Skander Kazdaghli, Iordanis Kerenidis ... Philip Teare
    Research Article

    Imputing data is a critical issue for machine learning practitioners, including in the life sciences domain, where missing clinical data is a typical situation and the reliability of the imputation is of great importance. Currently, there is no canonical approach for imputation of clinical data and widely used algorithms introduce variance in the downstream classification. Here we propose novel imputation methods based on determinantal point processes (DPP) that enhance popular techniques such as the multivariate imputation by chained equations and MissForest. Their advantages are twofold: improving the quality of the imputed data demonstrated by increased accuracy of the downstream classification and providing deterministic and reliable imputations that remove the variance from the classification results. We experimentally demonstrate the advantages of our methods by performing extensive imputations on synthetic and real clinical data. We also perform quantum hardware experiments by applying the quantum circuits for DPP sampling since such quantum algorithms provide a computational advantage with respect to classical ones. We demonstrate competitive results with up to 10 qubits for small-scale imputation tasks on a state-of-the-art IBM quantum processor. Our classical and quantum methods improve the effectiveness and robustness of clinical data prediction modeling by providing better and more reliable data imputations. These improvements can add significant value in settings demanding high precision, such as in pharmaceutical drug trials where our approach can provide higher confidence in the predictions made.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology

    Heritable epigenetic changes are constrained by the dynamics of regulatory architectures

    Antony M Jose
    Research Article

    Interacting molecules create regulatory architectures that can persist despite turnover of molecules. Although epigenetic changes occur within the context of such architectures, there is limited understanding of how they can influence the heritability of changes. Here, I develop criteria for the heritability of regulatory architectures and use quantitative simulations of interacting regulators parsed as entities, their sensors, and the sensed properties to analyze how architectures influence heritable epigenetic changes. Information contained in regulatory architectures grows rapidly with the number of interacting molecules and its transmission requires positive feedback loops. While these architectures can recover after many epigenetic perturbations, some resulting changes can become permanently heritable. Architectures that are otherwise unstable can become heritable through periodic interactions with external regulators, which suggests that mortal somatic lineages with cells that reproducibly interact with the immortal germ lineage could make a wider variety of architectures heritable. Differential inhibition of the positive feedback loops that transmit regulatory architectures across generations can explain the gene-specific differences in heritable RNA silencing observed in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. More broadly, these results provide a foundation for analyzing the inheritance of epigenetic changes within the context of the regulatory architectures implemented using diverse molecules in different living systems.