sciscape Publications

In 40 worms, 50 flies and 22 larval zebrafish, wiring explained 2-24% of the reliable pair-specific coupling after node and distance controls; the link was pair-specific, and only swimming changed it

by
4 citing publications

Question: how much of the reliable pair-specific functional connectivity (FC) does wiring explain after node and distance effects, is that part truly pair-specific, and where does it change with brain state? Data: per-individual FC of C. elegans (40 worms, 119 neurons, Cook 2019 wiring), Drosophila (50 flies, 75 regions, FlyWire flow) and larval zebrafish (22 fish, 65 regions, mapZebrain projectome). Method: we removed node fixed effects, a distance spline and homologous pairs from group FC, and divided the split-half coupling of wiring with this pair-specific FC by the square root of its split-half reliability (rho = correlation with the noise-free pair FC). Checks: a network simulation, 200 strength- and distance-preserving surrogates, anisotropic geometry, rank-r node factors fit on other individuals, the Randi 2023 causal atlas, and paired state contrasts. Intervals are leave-one-individual-out jackknife 95% intervals. Results: in simulation, a noisier state cut the usual per-animal coupling by 62% while rho stayed at the truth. Pair-specific FC was reliable (split-half 0.88, 0.74, 0.81), but structure explained only 3%, 24% and 9% of it (rho of all structure 0.174, 0.485, 0.294; direct wiring 0.141, 0.392, 0.122). Surrogates reproduced only 8%, 18% and 0% of this coupling, so it is pair-specific; geometry changes moved rho by at most 0.03. Rank-3 node factors captured 62-78% of the reliable pair-specific FC; worm gap junctions (rho 0.164) and fly flow (0.284) still predicted the fine-grained rest. The worm causal atlas explained less than anatomy (rho 0.075 vs 0.171). Forward versus reversal (worm) and dark flashes (zebrafish) changed the pair pattern (cross-state rho 0.94 and 0.75) without a change of wiring coupling; rest versus walk (fly) changed neither, except a small decrease with global signal regression (0.031, CI 0.001-0.061). Swimming (14 fish) raised zebrafish coupling (direct 0.101 to 0.171, difference 0.070, CI 0.011-0.128; all structure 0.231 to 0.437), also after removal of the swim-evoked response. Limitations: connectomes and activity come from different animals; connectome error is not corrected; only 14 fish for swims; swim motion and gene co-expression were not controlled; some analyses were added after the first results.

structure-function coupling · functional connectivity · connectome · reliability · noise ceiling · brain state · node fixed effects · surrogate wiring · low-rank structure · C. elegans · Drosophila · larval zebrafish · FlyWire · mapZebrain · gap junctions · shared input · swimming · signal propagation atlas
Neurons and Cognition

References

23
  1. uses, reviewsShared 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
  2. uses, reviewsIn fly, mouse and human data, surrogate wiring with matched node strengths and distances reproduced 48-100% of the FC gain of indirect-path measures; a large specific gain stayed only in sedated mouse
  3. 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
  4. In 48 freely moving C. elegans, smooth wiring eigenmodes held more head activity variance than rewired graphs, but not more than a distance-only graph with the same edge count
  5. uses, supportsFlyWire 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
  6. Single-neuron axon co-innervation predicted spike correlations between 30 mouse cortical areas, but real collateral patterns did not predict better than source-matched shuffles at 100 ms
  7. In larval zebrafish, a single-neuron projectome predicts region-level trial-residual coupling beyond distance and region effects, but not stimulus-locked coupling (25 regions, 11 fish)
  8. uses, supportsIn 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
  9. uses, reviewsIn 20 larval zebrafish, mapZebrain wiring predicts region coupling beyond distance and region effects; near swim bouts all spatial structure of coupling increases
  10. In the same mice, the Allen tracer connectome predicts cortical resting fMRI beyond distance under medetomidine with isoflurane, but much less under isoflurane alone or awake
  11. usesdoi:10.1016/j.cell.2023.07.035
  12. usesdoi:10.5281/zenodo.19388374
  13. usesdoi:10.1038/s41586-019-1352-7
  14. usesdoi:10.1038/s41586-023-06683-4
  15. useshttps://github.com/francescorandi/wormneuroatlas/tree/b2e13d88b670efcb3438aeacba2ad4bd6c383933
  16. usesdoi:10.7554/eLife.85202
  17. usesdoi:10.5061/dryad.3bk3j9kpb
  18. usesdoi:10.1038/s41586-024-07558-y
  19. usesdoi:10.5281/zenodo.10676866
  20. usesdoi:10.1126/sciadv.adv7576
  21. usesdoi:10.5683/SP3/IIVGOB
  22. usesdoi:10.1016/j.neuron.2019.04.034
  23. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06098-1

Cited by

4 publications
  1. In 40 moving C. elegans, 63% of reliable pair-specific co-activity was locked to six behaviour variables; wiring and transcriptomes explained about 10% of the behaviour-independent rest supports, uses
  2. Behaviour-locked covariance carried 71% of reliable pair-specific coactivity in 40 moving C. elegans and 47-52% in 22 larval zebrafish; wiring explained under 8% of the remainder uses, supports
  3. In 40 moving C. elegans, behaviour-locked activity held 56% of reliable pair-specific co-activity and wiring at most 5% of the rest; in 22 zebrafish larvae swim and flash terms held 24-36% uses
  4. Transcriptome similarity explained a small part of residual coupling in 40 off-food and 8 re-fed worms reviews