Synapses with short-term plasticity are optimal estimators of presynaptic membrane potentials

Journal name:
Nature Neuroscience
Volume:
13,
Pages:
1271–1275
Year published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nn.2640
Received
Accepted
Published online

Abstract

The trajectory of the somatic membrane potential of a cortical neuron exactly reflects the computations performed on its afferent inputs. However, the spikes of such a neuron are a very low-dimensional and discrete projection of this continually evolving signal. We explored the possibility that the neuron′s efferent synapses perform the critical computational step of estimating the membrane potential trajectory from the spikes. We found that short-term changes in synaptic efficacy can be interpreted as implementing an optimal estimator of this trajectory. Short-term depression arose when presynaptic spiking was sufficiently intense as to reduce the uncertainty associated with the estimate; short-term facilitation reflected structural features of the statistics of the presynaptic neuron such as up and down states. Our analysis provides a unifying account of a powerful, but puzzling, form of plasticity.

At a glance

Figures

  1. Estimating the presynaptic membrane potential from spiking information.
    Figure 1: Estimating the presynaptic membrane potential from spiking information.

    (a) Sample trace (black) of the presynaptic membrane potential generated by an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. When the membrane potential exceeds a soft threshold, action potentials (vertical black lines) are generated. The optimal estimator of the presynaptic membrane potential (red line, mean estimate ût; red shading, one s.d. σt) closely matches an optimally tuned canonical model of short-term plasticity11 (blue). Inset shows a magnified section. (b) EPSP amplitude of the optimal estimator (red, mean ± s.d.) and of the canonical model of short-term plasticity (blue, mean ± s.d.) as a function of the estimator uncertainty σ2. Note that EPSP amplitudes in the biophysical model tend to be smaller than those in the optimal estimator, which is compensating for a somewhat slower decay in the biophysical model (see inset in a). (c) The dynamics of the scaled uncertainty (red) closely match the resource variable x of the canonical model of STP (blue), σ2.

  2. Estimating the presynaptic membrane potential when the resting membrane potential randomly switches between two different values.
    Figure 2: Estimating the presynaptic membrane potential when the resting membrane potential randomly switches between two different values.

    (a) Presynaptic subthreshold membrane potential with action potentials (black), its optimal mean estimate (û, red line) with the associated s.d. (σ, red shading) and the postsynaptic membrane potential in a model synapse11 with optimally tuned short-term plasticity (blue line). Inset, the (scaled) optimal estimator (red solid line) strongly depends on the estimated probability ρ of being in the up state (red dashed line). (b) EPSP amplitude in the optimal estimator depends on its uncertainty (horizontal axis, σ2) and the change in the estimated probability that the presynaptic cell is in its up state (color code, Δρ). (c) The estimated probability that the presynaptic cell is in its up state ρ (red) tracks the state of the presynaptic neuron (black) as it randomly switches between its up and down states. (d) EPSP magnitudes in the optimal estimator against EPSP magnitudes in the model synapse.

  3. The optimal estimator reproduces experimentally observed patterns of synaptic depression and facilitation.
    Figure 3: The optimal estimator reproduces experimentally observed patterns of synaptic depression and facilitation.

    (a) Synaptic depression in cerebellar climbing fibers (circles: mean ± s.e.m.; redrawn from ref. 6) and in the model (solid line), measured as the ratio of the amplitude of the eighth and first EPSP as a function of the stimulation rate during a train of eight presynaptic spikes. (b) Synaptic facilitation in hippocampal Schäffer collaterals (circles, mean ± s.e.m.; redrawn from ref. 39) and in the model (solid line), measured as the ratio of the amplitude of the second and first EPSP as a function of the interval between a pair of presynaptic spikes. Shading in a and b shows the robustness of the fits (Online Methods): model predictions when best-fit parameters are perturbed by 5% (dark gray) or 10% (light gray). (c,d) Predictions of the model for the dynamics of inferior olive neurons (c) and hippocampal pyramidal neurons (d). Sample traces were generated with parameters fitted to the data about STP in cerebellar climbing fibers (shown in a) and Schäffer collaterals (shown in b). (e,f) In vivo intracellular recordings from inferior olive neurons of the (anesthetized) rat (e, reproduced from ref. 40) and hippocampal pyramidal cells of the behaving rat (f, reproduced from ref. 38).

  4. Estimation performance of the presynaptic membrane potential.
    Figure 4: Estimation performance of the presynaptic membrane potential.

    (a) Performance as a function of the determinism of presynaptic spiking, β (Online Methods), in the optimal estimator (red), an optimally fitted dynamic synapse (blue) and an optimally fitted static synapse without short-term plasticity (green). When β = 0 (entirely stochastic spiking), spikes are generated independently of the membrane potential and, as a consequence, all models fail to track the membrane potential. As β becomes larger (more deterministic spiking), the dynamic synapse model matches the optimal estimator in performance and substantially outperforms the static synapse. Realistic values for βσOU (here σOU =1 mV) have been found to be between 2 and 3 in L5 pyramidal cells of somatosensory cortex49. (b) Estimation performance with stochastic vesicle release as a function of the number of synaptic release sites, N. The dynamic synapse (blue) tracked the performance of the optimal estimator (red) well and outperformed the static synapse (green) at all values of N. The performance of all estimators decreases only when the number of independent release sites becomes very low (N = 1 or 2). When N is large (N right arrow ∞), synaptic transmission becomes deterministic, even though spike generation itself remains stochastic (with parameter β = 2 shown by the arrow in a).

References

  1. Markram, H., Wu, Y. & Tosdyks, M. Differential signaling via the same axon of neocortical pyramidal neurons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 53235328 (1998).
  2. Zucker, R.S. & Regehr, W.G. Short-term synaptic plasticity. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 64, 355405 (2002).
  3. Abbott, L.F. & Regehr, W.G. Synaptic computation. Nature 431, 796803 (2004).
  4. Loebel, A. et al. Multiquantal release underlies the distribution of synaptic efficacies in the neocortex. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 3, 113 (2009).
  5. Pfister, J.P., Dayan, P. & Lengyel, M. Know thy neighbour: A normative theory of synaptic depression. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22 (eds. Bengio, Y., Schuurmans, D., Lafferty, J., Williams, C.K.I. & Culotta, A.) 14641472 (2009).
  6. Dittman, J.S., Kreitzer, A. & Regehr, W.G. Interplay between facilitation, depression, and residual calcium at three presynaptic terminals. J. Neurosci. 20, 13741385 (2000).
  7. Merkel, M. & Lindner, B. Synaptic filtering of rate-coded information. Phys. Rev. E 81, 041921 (2010).
  8. Abbott, L.F., Varela, J.A., Sen, K. & Nelson, S.B. Synaptic depression and cortical gain control. Science 275, 220224 (1997).
  9. Cook, D.L., Schwindt, P., Grande, L. & Spain, W. Synaptic depression in the localization of sound. Nature 421, 6670 (2003).
  10. Goldman, M.S., Maldonado, P. & Abbott, L. Redundancy reduction and sustained firing with stochastic depressing synapses. J. Neurosci. 22, 584591 (2002).
  11. Mongillo, G., Barak, O. & Tsodyks, M. Synaptic theory of working memory. Science 319, 15431546 (2008).
  12. Carpenter, G. & Grossberg, S. Pattern Recognition by Self-Organizing Neural Networks (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1991).
  13. Hasselmo, M.E. & Bower, J. Acetylcholine and memory. Trends Neurosci. 16, 218222 (1993).
  14. Zador, A. Impact of synaptic unreliability on the information transmitted by spiking neurons. J. Neurophysiol. 79, 12191229 (1998).
  15. de la Rocha, J., Nevado, A. & Parga, N. Information transmission by stochastic synapses with short-term depression: neural coding and optimization. Neurocomputing 44, 8590 (2002).
  16. Pfister, J.P. & Lengyel, M. Speed versus accuracy in spiking attractor networks. in Front. Syst. Neurosci. Conference Abstract: Computational and Systems Neuroscience 2009 (2009).
  17. Wilson, H.R. & Cowan, J.D. Excitatory and inhibitory interactions in localized populations of model neurons. Biophys. J. 12, 124 (1972).
  18. Dayan, P. & Abbott, L.F. Theoretical Neuroscience (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2001).
  19. Thorpe, S., Fize, D. & Marlot, C. Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature 381, 520522 (1996).
  20. Huys, Q.J., Zemel, R., Natarajan, R. & Dayan, P. Fast population coding. Neural Comput. 19, 404441 (2007).
  21. Stanford, T.R., Shankar, S., Massoglia, D., Costello, M. & Salinas, E. Perceptual decision making in less than 30 milliseconds. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 379385 (2010).
  22. Hopfield, J.J. Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 79, 25542558 (1982).
  23. Lengyel, M., Kwag, J., Paulsen, O. & Dayan, P. Matching storage and recall: hippocampal spike timing–dependent plasticity and phase response curves. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 16771683 (2005).
  24. Seung, H.S. & Sompolinsky, H. Simple models for reading neuronal population codes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90, 1074910753 (1993).
  25. Anderson, B. & Moore, J. Optimal Filtering (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1979).
  26. Eden, U.T., Frank, L., Barbieri, R., Solo, V. & Brown, E. Dynamic analysis of neural encoding by point process adaptive filtering. Neural Comput. 16, 971998 (2004).
  27. Paninski, L. The most likely voltage path and large deviations approximations for integrate-and-fire neurons. J. Comput. Neurosci. 21, 7187 (2006).
  28. Bobrowski, O., Meir, R. & Eldar, Y. Bayesian filtering in spiking neural networks: noise, adaptation and multisensory integration. Neural Comput. 21, 12771320 (2009).
  29. Cunningham, J., Yu, B., Shenoy, K. & Sahani, M. Inferring neural firing rates from spike trains using Gaussian processes. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 20 (eds. Platt, J., Koller, D., Singer, Y. & Roweis, S.) 329336 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2008).
  30. Gerstner, W. & Kistler, W.K. Spiking Neuron Models (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002).
  31. Paninski, L., Pillow, J. & Simoncelli, E. Maximum likelihood estimate of a stochastic integrate-and-fire neural encoding model. Neural Comput. 16, 25332561 (2004).
  32. Stein, R.B. A theoretical analysis of neuronal variability. Biophys. J. 5, 173194 (1965).
  33. Lansky, P. & Ditlevsen, S. A review of the methods for signal estimation in stochastic diffusion leaky integrate-and-fire neuronal models. Biol. Cybern. 99, 253262 (2008).
  34. Tsodyks, M., Pawelzik, K. & Markram, H. Neural networks with dynamic synapses. Neural Comput. 10, 821835 (1998).
  35. Shinomoto, S., Sakai, Y. & Funahashi, S. The Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process does not reproduce spiking statistics of neurons in prefrontal cortex. Neural Comput. 11, 935951 (1999).
  36. Steriade, M., Nunez, A. & Amzica, F. A novel slow (< 1 Hz) oscillation of neocortical neurons in vivo: depolarizing and hyperpolarizing components. J. Neurosci. 13, 32523265 (1993).
  37. Cossart, R., Aronov, D. & Yuste, R. Attractor dynamics of network UP states in the neocortex. Nature 423, 283288 (2003).
  38. Harvey, C.D., Collman, F., Dombeck, D. & Tank, D. Intracellular dynamics of hippocampal place cells during virtual navigation. Nature 461, 941946 (2009).
  39. Dobrunz, L.E., Huang, E. & Stevens, C. Very short-term plasticity in hippocampal synapses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 1484314847 (1997).
  40. Chorev, E., Yarom, Y. & Lampl, I. Rhythmic episodes of subthreshold membrane potential oscillations in the rat inferior olive nuclei in vivo. J. Neurosci. 27, 50435052 (2007).
  41. Markram, H. & Tsodyks, M. Redistribution of synaptic efficacy between neocortical pyramidal neurons. Nature 382, 807810 (1996).
  42. Thomson, A.M. Facilitation, augmentation and potentiation at central synapses. Trends Neurosci. 23, 305312 (2000).
  43. Martin, S.J., Grimwood, P. & Morris, R. Synaptic plasticity and memory: an evaluation of the hypothesis. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 23, 649711 (2000).
  44. Manabe, T., Wyllie, D., Perkel, D. & Nicoll, R. Modulation of synaptic transmission and long-term potentiation: effects on paired pulse facilitation and EPSC variance in the CA1 region of the hippocampus. J. Neurophysiol. 70, 1451 (1993).
  45. Reyes, A. et al. Target cell–specific facilitation and depression in neocortical circuits. Nat. Neurosci. 1, 279285 (1998).
  46. Koester, H.J. & Johnston, D. Target cell-dependent normalization of transmitter release at neocortical synapses. Science 308, 863866 (2005).
  47. Denève, S. Bayesian spiking neurons. I. inference. Neural Comput. 20, 91117 (2008).
  48. Wark, B., Fairhall, A. & Rieke, F. Timescales of inference in visual adaptation. Neuron 61, 750761 (2009).
  49. Jolivet, R., Rauch, A., Lüscher, H.R. & Gerstner, W. Predicting spike timing of neocortical pyramidal neurons by simple threshold models. J. Comput. Neurosci. 21, 3549 (2006).
  50. Doucet, A., De Freitas, N. & Gordon, N. Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice (Springer, New York, 2001).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Computational and Biological Learning Lab, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

    • Jean-Pascal Pfister &
    • Máté Lengyel
  2. Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, University College London, London, UK.

    • Peter Dayan

Contributions

J.-P.P. and M.L. developed the mathematical framework. J.-P.P. performed the numerical simulations. All of the authors wrote the manuscript.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. Supplementary Text and Figures (764K)

    Supplementary Figures 1–3 and Supplementary Note

Additional data