ReDiClus: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Bradley Monk (talk | contribs) |
Bradley Monk (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Box|font=120%|width=95%|float=left|text=12px|Visual Representations|[[File:ScaleModel.png|950px]]}} | {{Box|font=120%|width=95%|float=left|text=12px|Visual Representations|[[File:ScaleModel.png|950px]]}}{{Clear}} | ||
==Particle Diffusion== | ==Particle Diffusion== | ||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
* D<sub>psd</sub> ≃ 0.3/100 ≃ 0.003 um²/s | * D<sub>psd</sub> ≃ 0.3/100 ≃ 0.003 um²/s | ||
}} | }}<!-- END BOX -->{{Clear}} | ||
==Homeostatic Scaling== | |||
{{Box|font=120%|width=95%|float=left|text=12px|padding=1em 0em 0em 2em|PSD-95 SAP Cluster Scaling| | |||
;<big>From Tatavarty:</big> | |||
{{Cquote|Synaptic scaling is a cell-autonomous process in which neurons detect changes in their own firing through a set of calcium-dependent sensors, and then slowly increase or decrease the accumulation of synaptic AMPARs to compensate (Turrigiano et al., 1998; Ibata et al., 2008; Goold and Nicoll, 2010).}}<br> | |||
;<big>From Sheng:</big> | |||
{{Cquote|PSD-95 family molecules outnumber AMPARs (up to 20-fold). Quantitative MS counted 60 copies of AMPAR subunits (GluR1, GluR2, GluR3) in the average PSD, which equates to 15 tetrameric AMPAR channels, of which >80 percent appears to be GluR1/GluR2 heteromers. Fifteen may be an underestimate because some postsynaptic AMPAR channels might be extracted by Triton during purification of PSDs.}} | |||
<br> | |||
Given those two observations, I wrote a matlab function that allowed for homeostatic scaling. Based on Sheng's review (and a few other sources), on average, there are about 20 AMPARs per PSD. In our current model we have 2 PSD areas, so there should be about 40 total receptors (combined) in those PSDs, on average. | |||
<br> | |||
To anthropomorphise, we want our modeled neuron to be homeostatically-content when there are 40 receptors in its synapses (content/satisfied meaning all diffusion parameters are running at some predefined baseline value, or whatever we specify). We can also specify a range of values at which our neuron is content; I arbitrarily set this range to 25-55 receptors. Just to be clear, that is 25-55 total combined receptors -- let's call this value PSDT. For example, PSD1 could have 35 receptors and PSD2 could have 10 receptors, making PSDT ≃ 45. If both PSD1 and PSD2 have 16 receptors each, PSDT ≃ 32. Our modeled neuron would be satisfied with either of those scenarios. However, if PSD1 had 35 and PSD2 had 30, making PSDT ≃ 65, our neuron will not be happy, and should take some action to decrease the total number of AMPARs being expressed at its PSDs. | |||
;Homeostatic Scaling Function | |||
* <code>IF PSDT > 55 THEN increase the PSD diffusion rates (make less sticky)</code> | |||
* <code>IF PSDT < 25 THEN decrease the PSD diffusion rates (make more sticky)</code> | |||
Remember the model functions are modular, so we could actually do something as simple as above, and directly alter the PSD diffusion rates. But we also want our modular functions to "play nice" with each other -- so if we are scaling PSD diffusion rates based on SAP expression ( function doSAP ≃ SAPfunc(on) ), instead of directly setting D<sub>psd</sub> we'll instead want to increase or decrease SAP expression. Doing this will automatically update the diffusion rate of respective PSD areas. The easiest way to incorporate this function is by manipulating the SAP repulsion lattice constant (L) based on PSDT. | |||
* When L≃2 the SAP cluster is relatively stable | |||
* When L≃1 the cluster starts to grow | |||
* When L≃3 the cluster starts to shrink. | |||
So when PSDT > 55 then L ≃ 3 and when PSDT < 25 then L≃1 and when PSDT is between 25 and 55 then L≃2. And I should note that these are global changes to L (both PSD areas get the same L), because in a real-life scenario the neuron only cares that it's firing too much or too little, not necessarily which of its hundreds of PSDs are responsible. Does this make sense? | |||
The homeostatic function can be made more complex, or flexible, but it can really be this simple (and I know you are a proponent of eloquence), which is nice for when we are testing out predictions unrelated to homeostatic scaling. But from here, we can begin to consider what manipulations to this function would make it more true-to-life. For example, homeostatic scaling is a relatively slow process -- maybe we only want the model to check the PSDT value once every 10 minutes, maybe we want to make more subtle changes in L, maybe we want to change another parameter instead of L. The choice is ours. But ultimately, we want to update the model based on what we know happens in the real world. | |||
{{Clear}} | }}<!-- END BOX -->{{Clear}} | ||
==Physical Properties== | ==Physical Properties== | ||
Line 114: | Line 142: | ||
}} | }} | ||
}}<!-- END | }}<!-- END BOX --> | ||
Revision as of 21:53, 3 September 2013
ReDiClus - Receptor Diffusion & Cluster Model
Simulation Space
ReDiClus Model Space
Particle Types
Visual Representations
Particle Diffusion
Simulating Molecular Diffusion
Homeostatic Scaling
PSD-95 SAP Cluster Scaling
Physical Properties
ReDiClus Physics
two independent processes
MEAN SQUARED DISPLACEMENT
Data Generation
ReDiClus MODEL DATA RESULTS
Neural Anatomy
Quantitative Physiology of the Dendrite
Quantitative Review
The Size of Dendrites
Particle Counts
Diffusion Rates
Images
Choquet 2007 Real Time Receptor Diffusion
Choquet 2007 Real Time Receptor Diffusion Analysis
Receptor Diffusion Rate Best Estimates
Brain Data: Facts and Figures
Estimated Number of Neurons in the Brain of Humans & Other Animals
Brain vs Computer
Facts and Figures
Processor | Transistor count | Date of introduction | Manufacturer | Semiconductor device fabrication|Process | Area |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Core 2 Duo Wolfdale3M | 230,000,000 | 2008 | Intel | 45 nm | 83 mm² |
Core i7 (Quad) | 731,000,000 (7e8) | 2008 | Intel | 45 nm | 263 mm² |
POWER6 | 789,000,000 | 2007 | IBM | 65 nm | 341 mm² |
WDC 65C02 | 785,000,000 | 2009 | western design center | 0.22 µm | 14 mm² |
Six-Core Opteron 2400 | 904,000,000 | 2009 | AMD | 45 nm | 346 mm² |
16-Core SPARC T3 | 1,000,000,000 (1e9) | 2010 | Sun Oracle Corporation|Oracle | 40 nm | 377 mm² |
Quad-Core plus GPU Sandy Bridge Core i7 | 1,160,000,000 | 2011 | Intel | 32 nm | 216 mm² |
Core i7 (Gulftown) | 1,170,000,000 | 2010 | Intel | 32 nm | 240 mm² |
8-core POWER7 32M L3 | 1,200,000,000 | 2010 | IBM | 45 nm | 567 mm² |
8-Core AMD Bulldozer | 1,200,000,000 | 2012 | AMD | 32nm | 315 mm² |
Quad-Core + GPU AMD Trinity | 1,303,000,000 | 2012 | AMD | 32 nm | 246 mm² |
z196 | 1,400,000,000 | 2010 | IBM | 45 nm | 512 mm² |
Core i7 | 1,400,000,000 | 2012 | Intel | 22 nm | 160 mm² |
Dual-Core Itanium 2 | 1,700,000,000 | 2006 | Intel | 90 nm | 596 mm² |
Six-Core Xeon 7400 | 1,900,000,000 | 2008 | Intel | 45 nm | 503 mm² |
Tukwila | 2,000,000,000 (2e9) | 2010 | Intel | 65 nm | 699 mm² |
8-core POWER7 80M L3 | 2,100,000,000 | 2012 | IBM | 32 nm | 567 mm² |
Six-Core Core i7 and 8-Core Xeon E5 | 2,270,000,000 | 2011 | Intel | 32 nm | 434 mm² |
Nehalem-EX | 2,300,000,000 | 2010 | Intel | 45 nm | 684 mm² |
10-Core Xeon Westmere-EX | 2,600,000,000 | 2011 | Intel | 32 nm | 512 mm² |
zEC12 | 2,750,000,000 | 2012 | IBM | 32 nm | 597 mm² |
Poulson | 3,100,000,000 (3e9) | 2012 | Intel | 32 nm | 544 mm² |
15-Core Xeon Ivy Bridge-EX | 4,310,000,000 (4e9) | 2014 | Intel | 22 nm | |
62-Core Xeon Phi | 5,000,000,000 | 2012 | Intel | 22 nm | |
Xbox One Main SoC | 5,000,000,000 (5e9) | 2013 | Microsoft/AMD | 28 nm | 363 mm² |
STARShiP | Molecular Methods | Quantum Dots | AMPAR | Brownian Motion |
Malinow | Molecular Methods | Quantum Dots | Choquet | AMPAR |