Dale’s Principle Is Necessary for an Optimal Neuronal Network’s Dynamics
- 1 Instituto de Matemática y Estadstica “Prof. Ing. Rafael Laguardia”, Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay
Abstract
We study a mathematical model of biological neuronal networks composed by any finite number N ≥ 2 of non - necessarily identical cells. The model is a deterministic dynamical system governed by finite-dimensional impulsive differential equations. The statical structure of the network is described by a directed and weighted graph whose nodes are certain subsets of neurons, and whose edges are the groups of synaptical connection s among those subsets. First, we prove that among all the possible networks such as their respective graphs are mutually isomorphic, there exists a dynamical optimum. This optimal network exhibits the richest dynamics: namely, it is capable to show the most diverse set of responses ( i.e. orbits in the future) under external stimulus or signals. Second, we prove that all the neurons of a dynamically optimal neuronal network necessarily satisfy Dale’s Principle, i.e. each neuron must be either excitatory or inhibitory, but not mixed. So, Dale’s Principle is a mathematical necessary consequence of a theoretic optimization process of the dynamics of the network. Finally, we prove that Dale’s Principle is not sufficient for the dynamical optimization of the network.
- P. Strata and R. Harvey, “Dale’s Principle,” Brain Research Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 5-6, 1999, pp. 349-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0361-9230(99)00100-8
- M. F. Bear, B. W. Connors and M. A. Paradiso, “Neuroscience—Exploring the Brain,” 3rd Edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2007
- G. Burnstock, “Cotransmission,” Current Opinion in Pharmacology, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2004, pp. 47-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coph.2003.08.001
- L. E. Trudeau and R. Gutiérrez, “On Cotransmission & Neurotransmitter Phenotype Plasticity,” Molecular Interventions, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2007, pp. 138-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1124/mi.7.3.5
- R. E. Mirollo and S. H. Strogatz, “Synchronization of Pulse Coupled Biological Oscillators,” SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, Vol. 50, No. 6, 1990, pp. 16451662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/0150098
- L. Gómez and R. Budelli, “Two-Neuron Networks II: Leaky Integrator Pacemaker Models,” Biological Cybernetics, Vol. 74, No. 2, 1996, pp. 131-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00204201
- W. Mass and C. M. Bishop, “Pulsed Neural Networks,” MIT Press, Cambridge, 2001.
- G. B. Ermentrout and D. H. Terman, “Mathematical Foundations of Neuroscience,” In: Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, Springer, New York, 2010. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-0-387-87708-2/page/1
- W. Gerstner and W. Kistler, “Spiking Neuron Models,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815706
- K. K. Lin, K. C. A. Wedgwood, S. Coombes and L.-S. Young, “Limitations of Perturbative Techniques in the Analysis of Rhythms and Oscillations,” Journal of Mathematical Biology, Vol. 66, No. 1-2, 2013, pp. 139-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00285-012-0506-0
- E. M. Izhikevich, “Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience: The Geometry of Excitability and Bursting,” MIT Press, Cambridge, 2007.
- A. J. Catllá, D. G. Schaeffer, T. P. Witelski, E. E. Monson and A. L. Lin, “On Spiking Models for Synaptic Activity and Impulsive Differential Equations,” SIAM Review, Vol. 50, No. 3, 2008, pp. 553-569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/060667980
- E. Catsigeras and P. Guiraud, “Integrate and Fire Neural Networks, Piecewise Contractive Maps and Limit Cycles,” Journal of Mathematical Biology, 2013, in Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00285-012-0560-7
- V. D. Milman and A. D. Myshkis, “On the Stability of Motion in the Presence of Impulses (in Russian),” Siberian Mathematical Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1960, pp. 233237.