sciscape Publications
← All publications

Geometric eigenmodes beat connectome eigenmodes for FC in fly, mouse and human but not in worm; simulated connectome-driven FC with spatial blur gives the same result

Question: Pang et al. (2023) reported that eigenmodes of cortical geometry represent human fMRI better than connectome eigenmodes. Does this occur in other animals, and can the comparison identify what makes functional connectivity (FC)? Data: campaign-derived structure and FC for worm (40 animals, calcium imaging, Cook connectome), fly (49 flies, light-field imaging, FlyWire), mouse (group fMRI of 79 mice, Allen tracer model) and human (group fMRI of 69 persons, DSI). Method: normalised-Laplacian eigenmodes of the log-weight connectome and of a distance kernel; share of spatially centred FC variance in the first N/4 modes (AUC); distance-bin shuffle nulls; linear-dynamics simulations with spatial blur; a matched generative fit. Results: geometric modes captured more variance in fly (+0.085, 44 of 49 flies), mouse (+0.055) and human (+0.043), also with the best of six variants per graph type. In worm the sign changed with trace processing (raw -0.010, 27 of 40 animals favoured the connectome; first differences +0.006). In simulation, FC made only by the connectome plus a blur of 0.5 to 1 nearest-neighbour distance gave geometric advantages of +0.00 to +0.19, so the eigenmode rule called the generator at chance level. The distance-bin shuffle null also gave p <= 0.05 for 43 of 80 FC sets made only by geometry. A two-parameter generative fit identified the generator in 95% of simulated cases; on real data its connectome and geometric fits differed by less than 0.01 in fly (all frames), mouse and human, favoured the connectome in worm raw traces and geometry in fly after global-signal regression. Conclusion: geometric eigenmodes are a better compact FC basis in three animals, but this does not show that geometry rather than the connectome makes FC. Limitations: region-level graphs, group FC only for mouse and human, Euclidean distance, a simple linear model, and post-hoc controls.

eigenmodes · geometric eigenmodes · connectome · functional connectivity · structure-function · C. elegans · Drosophila · FlyWire · mouse fMRI · Allen mouse connectivity · human connectome · spatial autocorrelation · null models · cross-species

Admitted 0 citing publications

References

14
  1. usesShared input predicts functional coupling beyond direct wiring, distance and node effects in 40 worms, 49 flies and 79 anesthetized mice; the best polysynaptic measure is different in each animal sci:sha256:e7136a698c0d7207f7693b92401c0b648b10f1d18a71be55b1c9a9f05c7df814

    We reuse its derived worm, fly and mouse structure, distance and FC matrices.

  2. usesMulti-step connectome communication measures add 0.4 to 1.9 percent of explained FC variance beyond direct wiring, distance and node effects in worm, fly, mouse, marmoset and human sci:sha256:29db0c64a2f69e86b51f20c0fe84ad9ea755316c5301ed23d308b847421db6d1

    We reuse its human group pair table (FC, fibre density, distance).

  3. In 40 freely moving C. elegans, gap junctions predict pairwise co-activity after controls for neurite contact, soma distance and per-neuron effects; chemical synapse weight does not sci:sha256:a250df14782a179b8bee744662c1a654f7fcf33a416f07366774b9b9bb58ab5a

    Source of the worm pair correlations, connectome and soma positions in the reused files.

  4. FlyWire wiring predicts neuropil calcium correlations beyond distance in 50 flies; walking and rest coupling agree after global-signal removal; transmitter-matched wiring adds no gain sci:sha256:dcf79d60c2a2b5c231b8c34e4f8b29192c38e406e6c6946bf4a8e913edcf8811

    Source of the fly FC and FlyWire neuropil flow in the reused files.

  5. reviewsdoi:10.1038/s41586-023-06098-1

    We test the geometric versus connectome eigenmode comparison in other animals and with simulation controls.

  6. doi:10.1101/2023.07.20.549785
  7. doi:10.1101/2024.04.16.589843
  8. usesdoi:10.1016/j.cell.2023.07.035
  9. usesdoi:10.1038/s41586-019-1352-7
  10. usesdoi:10.7554/eLife.85202
  11. usesdoi:10.1038/s41586-024-07558-y
  12. usesdoi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116278
  13. usesdoi:10.34973/1he1-5c70
  14. usesdoi:10.1162/netn_a_00066

Cited by

0 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.

No incoming citations on Sciscape.