A closer look at the apparent correlation of structural and functional connectivity in excitable neural networks

The relationship between the structural connectivity (SC) and functional connectivity (FC) of neural systems is a central focus in brain network science. It is an open question, however, how strongly the SC-FC relationship depends on specific topological features of brain networks or the models used for describing excitable dynamics. Using a basic model of discrete excitable units that follow a susceptible - excited - refractory dynamic cycle (SER model), we here analyze how functional connectivity is shaped by the topological features of a neural network, in particular its modularity. We compared the results obtained by the SER model with corresponding simulations by another well established dynamic mechanism, the Fitzhugh-Nagumo model, in order to explore general features of the SC-FC relationship. We showed that apparent discrepancies between the results produced by the two models can be resolved by adjusting the time window of integration of co-activations from which the FC is derived, providing a clearer distinction between co-activations and sequential activations. Thus, network modularity appears as an important factor shaping the FC-SC relationship across different dynamic models.

[1]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[2]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Epidemic dynamics in finite size scale-free networks. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[3]  Stefan Bornholdt,et al.  Boolean Network Model Predicts Knockout Mutant Phenotypes of Fission Yeast , 2013, PloS one.

[4]  O. Sporns,et al.  Functional connectivity between anatomically unconnected areas is shaped by collective network-level effects in the macaque cortex. , 2012, Cerebral cortex.

[5]  S. Bornholdt,et al.  Boolean Network Model Predicts Cell Cycle Sequence of Fission Yeast , 2007, PloS one.

[6]  Kwang-Hyun Cho,et al.  Attractor Landscape Analysis Reveals Feedback Loops in the p53 Network That Control the Cellular Response to DNA Damage , 2012, Science Signaling.

[7]  S. Yoshizawa,et al.  An Active Pulse Transmission Line Simulating Nerve Axon , 1962, Proceedings of the IRE.

[8]  Norio Matsuki,et al.  Circuit topology for synchronizing neurons in spontaneously active networks , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  S. Kauffman.  Homeostasis and Differentiation in Random Genetic Control Networks , 1969, Nature.

[10]  K. Sneppen,et al.  Specificity and Stability in Topology of Protein Networks , 2002, Science.

[11]  O. Sporns,et al.  Mapping the Structural Core of Human Cerebral Cortex , 2008, PLoS biology.

[12]  Viktor K. Jirsa,et al.  Noise during Rest Enables the Exploration of the Brain's Dynamic Repertoire , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[13]  Ravi S. Menon,et al.  Identification of Optimal Structural Connectivity Using Functional Connectivity and Neural Modeling , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[14]  T. Geisel,et al.  Forecast and control of epidemics in a globalized world. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  Marc-Thorsten Hütt,et al.  Building Blocks of Self-Sustained Activity in a Simple Deterministic Model of Excitable Neural Networks , 2012, Front. Comput. Neurosci..

[16]  Matt J Keeling,et al.  Dynamics of infectious diseases , 2014, Reports on progress in physics. Physical Society.

[17]  M. Corbetta,et al.  How Local Excitation–Inhibition Ratio Impacts the Whole Brain Dynamics , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[18]  Q. Ouyang,et al.  The yeast cell-cycle network is robustly designed. , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  H. Othmer,et al.  The topology of the regulatory interactions predicts the expression pattern of the segment polarity genes in Drosophila melanogaster. , 2003, Journal of theoretical biology.

[20]  Dante R Chialvo,et al.  Brain organization into resting state networks emerges at criticality on a model of the human connectome. , 2012, Physical review letters.

[21]  Morten L. Kringelbach,et al.  Modeling the outcome of structural disconnection on resting-state functional connectivity , 2012, NeuroImage.

[22]  J. Kurths,et al.  Structure–function relationship in complex brain networks expressed by hierarchical synchronization , 2007 .

[23]  Habib Benali,et al.  Relating Structure and Function in the Human Brain: Relative Contributions of Anatomy, Stationary Dynamics, and Non-stationarities , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[24]  Marc-Thorsten Hütt,et al.  Perspective: network-guided pattern formation of neural dynamics , 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Structural foundations of resting-state and task-based functional connectivity in the human brain , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  Stefan Bornholdt,et al.  Less Is More in Modeling Large Genetic Networks , 2005, Science.

[27]  Viktor K. Jirsa,et al.  A Low Dimensional Description of Globally Coupled Heterogeneous Neural Networks of Excitatory and Inhibitory Neurons , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[28]  O Sporns,et al.  Predicting human resting-state functional connectivity from structural connectivity , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.