A distance constrained synaptic plasticity model of C. elegans neuronal network

Rahul Badhwar1 and Ganesh Bagler1,2∗1Centre for Biologically Inspired System Science,

Indian Institute of Technology Jodhpur, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India and2Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information and Communication Technology, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India

Brain research has been driven by inquiry for principles of brain structure organization and itscontrol mechanisms. The neuronal wiring map of C. elegans, the only complete connectome availabletill date, presents an incredible opportunity to learn basic governing principles that drive structureand function of its neuronal architecture. Despite its apparently simple nervous system, C. elegansis known to possess complex functions. The neuronal architecture forms an important underlyingframework which specifies phenotypic features associated to sensation, movement, conditioning andmemory. In this study, with the help of graph theoretical models, we investigated the C. elegansneuronal network to identify network features that are critical for its control. The ‘driver neurons’are associated with important biological functions such as reproduction, signalling processes andanatomical structural development. We created 1D and 2D network models of C. elegans neuronalsystem to probe the role of features that confer controllability and small world nature. The simple1D ring model is critically poised for the number of feed forward motifs, neuronal clustering andcharacteristic path-length in response to synaptic rewiring, indicating optimal rewiring. Usingempirically observed distance constraint in the neuronal network as a guiding principle, we createda distance constrained synaptic plasticity model that simultaneously explains small world nature,saturation of feed forward motifs as well as observed number of driver neurons. Our model suggestsoptimum long distance synaptic connections as a key feature specifying control of the network.

Keywords: C. elegans, neuronal network, feed forward motifs, synaptic plasticity, brain model.

I. INTRODUCTION

The quest for understanding broad structural orga-nization, functional building blocks and mechanisms ofcontrol of nervous systems has been central to neu-roscience [1]. Vast knowledge of cellular and molec-ular mechanisms garnered through reductionist studiesover decades, while enriching our understanding of brainmechanisms, have highlighted the need for holistic per-spective of neural architecture [2]. This urge to delveinto systems properties has propelled efforts into con-nectome projects that attempt to map neural wirings tothe finest detail possible [3–6]. C. elegans connectome isthe only complete neuronal wiring diagram available tilldate [3, 7, 8]. Along with the rich understanding avail-able on the biology of this model organism [9, 10], itsconnectome presents an incredible opportunity to learnbasic governing principles that drive structure and func-tion of neuronal architecture.

Despite its apparently simple nervous system, C. ele-gans is known to possess complex functions associated tosensation, movement, conditioning and memory [11, 12].This multi-cellular nematode has been extensively inves-tigated to understand neural mechanisms involved in re-sponse to chemicals, temperature, mechanical stimula-tion as well as mating and egg laying behaviors [11, 13].These biological functions have neuronal basis and area reflection of emergent properties of signal dynamicsover the network. Its nervous system has evolved to con-fer evolutionary benefits under constant tinkering and is

∗ ganesh.bagler@gmail.com

known to undergo synaptic rewiring during the course ofits life [14]. Beyond the broad evolutionary architecture,synaptic plasticity offers additional adaptive advantageto respond to the environment and perhaps to achievebetter functional efficiency.

The C. elegans neuronal system could be modelled as anetwork and studied for structural properties of its neu-ronal architecture as well as for network dynamics (Fig-ure 1). The C. elegans neuronal network (CeNN) hasbeen mapped to a high resolution with details of itsneurons, their locations and synaptic connectivity [15].The network, comprising of 277 neurons that are inter-linked with 2105 synapses, has been studied for its broadstructural features as well as towards identification ofmotifs that potentially contribute to the dynamics overthe network. Using graph theoretical measures, CeNNhas been observed to have a small world architecturewith small path length and high clustering [16]. Thishas been proposed to be due to processes that leave thenetwork critically poised between absolute order and ex-treme randomness. The small world nature may renderthis neural network (as well as other neuronal systems)efficient for information dynamics. When probing for net-work sub-structures that could form the building blockof the CeNN, Milo et al. identified feed forward motifs(FFMs) to be significantly over-represented [17]. Suchstructural building blocks have been suggested to be offunctional relevance to biological systems (in addition toother networked systems). How exactly such buildingblocks may offer functional advantage to networked sys-tems and whether these entities have evolved to optimizethe building blocks is not clearly understood yet.

arX

iv:1

603.

0386

7v1

[q-

bio.

NC

] 1

2 M

ar 2

016

2

FIG. 1. Network structure of C. elegans nervous system.Functionally relevant driver neurons (34 nodes highlighted inwhite) were identified with maximum matching criterion. Be-yond explaining the small world nature, saturation of feedforward motifs and observed number driver neurons, our dis-tance constrained synaptic plasticity model accurately iden-tifies specific driver neurons.

Control systems approach to complex networks pro-vides a better perspective of dynamics over the networkand ability to steer its ‘state’ [18]. Neuronal architec-ture of CeNN forms an important underlying frameworkwhich specifies phenotypic features of C. elegans. Im-portant behavioural traits as well as cognitive processes(such as movement, sensation, egg laying, mechanocep-tion, chemosensation and memory) are known to haveneuronal basis. A network is said to be controllable if itcan be reached to a desired state from any initial stateby providing inputs to certain nodes [18, 19]. The setof nodes that facilitate such a control are named drivernodes [18].

By studying genotypic and phenotypic aspects ofCeNN, in our earlier study we have shown that ‘driverneurons’ are associated with important biological func-tions such as reproduction, signalling processes andanatomical structural development [20]. Interestingly,randomized controls have no driver neurons as comparedto CeNN which presents a sizeable number of driver neu-rons that are crucial for its control. While earlier studieshave shown connectivity of neurons in CeNN partiallyexplains the observed number of driver neurons [18], nomodel has so far been developed that accounts for itssmall world architecture, over-representation of FFMs aswell as controllability.

In this study, we create one-dimensional (1D) andtwo-dimensional (2D) network models of C. elegans neu-ronal system to investigate the role of FFMs as build-ing blocks in conferring controllability and small worldnature. With the help of a simple 1D ring model we

show such a network is critically poised for the numberof FFMs, neuronal clustering and characteristic path-length in response to synaptic rewiring, indicating op-timal rewiring. We found that synaptic connections be-tween neurons are characterized with a strong distanceconstraint in CeNN. Using this as a guiding principle, wecreated a distance constrained synaptic plasticity modelthat simultaneously explains small world nature, FFMsaturation and controllability of the network. This modelaccounted for the observed number of driver neuronsand also accurately identified specific driver neurons.Thus our model presents realistic process of distance con-strained synaptic plasticity as a plausible basis of natureof functional sub-structures and controllability observedin CeNN.

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS

A. C. elegans neuronal network

The nervous system of C. elegans consists of 277 neu-rons (barring the pharyngeal neurons) which are inter-connected via electrical and chemical synapses [3, 15].We constructed CeNN, a graph theoretic model of C. el-egans neuronal network, comprising of 277 somatic neu-rons and 2105 synaptic connections. Multiple synapticconnections between two neurons were merged to yield asimple directed unweighted graph in which neurons rep-resent nodes and synaptic connections are links. A typ-ical neuron in CeNN on an average had 7.59 synapticconnections.

B. Topological properties of CeNN

We calculated following graph theoretical properties ofthe network embodying clustering, compactness, struc-tural motifs and controllability of the network.

1. Clustering coefficient

Clustering coefficient of a node Ci is defined as ratio ofnumber of triangles (triangle refers to a three node clique)made by a node with its neighbours to the maximumnumber of triangles that can be formed by them [16].For a graph G = (V,E) the clustering coefficient of anode i is defined as follows:

Ci =| ejk : vj , vk ∈ Ni, ejk ∈ E |

ki(ki − 1)

Here, Ni refers to the neighbourhood of node i and kirepresents its connectivity (degree).

The average clustering coefficient (C) was calcu-lated by averaging clustering coefficients of all n nodes:C = 1

n

∑ni=1 Ci.

3

2. Characteristic path-length

Characteristic path-length (L) enumerates compact-ness, reflecting ease of information transfer, of the net-work. It is defined as the average of shortest path-lengthsamong all pairs of nodes in the network.

L =1

n(n− 1)·∑i6=j

d(vi, vj)

3. Feed forward motifs

Network motifs are defined as patterns of interconnec-tions occurring in complex networks at numbers thatare significantly higher than those in randomized net-works [17]. In a three node digraph 13 different types ofthree node motifs can exist. Angular motifs are linearthree node sub-structures, and triangular motifs com-prise of three nodes inter-connected with either unidi-rectional or bidirectional edges. For our studies, we com-puted number of feed forward motifs, nFFM , (among uni-directional triangular motifs) that are prevalent in manyreal world networks including CeNN [17, 21]. Please seeSection S1 (Figure S1 and Figure S2) of SupplementalMaterial for more details. We used the algorithm em-ployed by Milo et al. for identification and enumerationof frequency of occurrence motifs [17]. The Zscore, indi-cating significance of observed number of FFMs in CeNN,was calculated by comparing it with random controls:

Zscore = nFFM (CeNN)−nFFM (ER)σER

.

4. Number of driver neurons

From control systems perspective, driver nodes in anetwork are those nodes which when controlled by ex-ternal input can provide full control over the state ofthe network [18]. Analogously, we term driver nodes inCeNN as driver neurons. Due to their role in controlof network, driver neurons are of functional relevance tothe neuronal network. We computed minimum numberof driver neurons (nD) using maximum matching crite-rion [18]. A node is said to be matching if any matchingedge is pointing towards it and is unmatched if no match-ing edge is directed towards it. We implemented maxi-mum matching algorithm proposed by Pothen et al. tofind unique unmatched nodes by augment matching [22].

C. Random controls of CeNN

We constructed two random controls of CeNN viz.Erdos-Renyi random control (ER) and degree distribu-tion conserved control (DD) [23, 24]. In ER control num-ber of nodes and edges were kept the same as that of

CeNN but the connectivity was random. In DD controlthe in-degree and out-degree of each node was also pre-served in addition to number of nodes and edges.

D. 1D ring model of CeNN

We constructed a ring graph model of CeNN so asto maximise the number of FFMs while preserving thenumber of neurons (n) as well as average neuronal con-nectivity (k) of CeNN (Figure 2). Starting with n(= 277)nodes arranged in a circular manner, every node was con-nected (in anti-clockwise sense) to its next nearest neigh-bour with a directed edge. The procedure was repeatedto connect every node with its nearest neighbour andthe next nearest neighbour until the out-degree of everynode matched with that of average out-degree of CeNN(k = 7.59 ≈ 8). This strategy maximises the numberof FFMs to nk(k − 1)/2 in the regular graph model ofCeNN and represents an asymptotic version saturatedwith FFMs.

FIG. 2. The 1D ring model, with neurons linked for max-imizing number of feed forward motifs, was rewired with in-creasing probability of synaptic rewiring. Starting with anasymptotic model (with 277 nodes and 8 out-going edges)saturated with FFMs, synaptic rewiring was emulated withprobability p. The model exhibits a spectrum of topologicalvariations between extreme regularity and randomness. Thefigure shows an illustration for 10 nodes and 2 outgoing edges.See Figure S3 of Supplemental Material for another illustra-tion.

To mimic random synaptic plasticity in this simple 1Dmodel, we rewired every edge in this network with a cer-tain ‘probability of rewiring (p)’. Every out-going edgeconnecting a node to its nearest neighbour was chosenand rewired randomly with probability p by ensuring thatthere were no duplicate edges or self-edges and that thenetwork is always connected. In the second lap, the pro-cess was repeated for the edges made with next-nearestneighbours and so on. All edges are thus exhaustivelyconsidered for rewiring in k laps. For every probabilityof rewiring 1000 instances of graphs were created for arange of p = 10−4 to p = 1. Topological properties (C,L, nFFM and nD) were computed for every instance ofgraph thus generated.

4

E. Distance constrained models of CeNN

We created 2D distance constrained models that, anal-ogous to distance constraint observed in CeNN, follow arestraint on synaptic connectivity based on distance be-tween two neurons. These 2D models are based on posi-tional data of C. elegans neurons, that have been mappedto a high resolution [15]. The probability P (d) that twoneurons at a distance d are connected with a synapse ap-proximately follows a power law pattern observed fromempirical data:

P ∝ d−α

The distance constraint is modulated by the exponent0 ≤ α ≤ ∞. Here, the distance between neurons iand j, d(i, j), was calculated as the Euclidean distance:

d(i, j) =√

(xi − xj)2 + (yi − yj)2.

We created two models of CeNN based on the dis-tance constraint: Distance constrained random (DCR)and Distance constrained synaptic plasticity (DCP).

1. Distance constrained random (DCR) model

The underlying framework for DCR model is that ofER control. Starting with ER (random) control, werewired every edge to impose distance constraint for spe-cific exponent α. Statistics of topological parameterswere computed over 100 instances. Response of DCRmodel was observed by varying the value of exponentbetween 0 ≤ α ≤ 3.

2. Distance constrained synaptic plasticity (DCP) model

In contrast to DCR model, the underlying frameworkfor DCP model is that of DD control which preservesthe synaptic connectivity of each neuron. Starting withDD control, every edge was rewired to impose distanceconstraint for specific exponent α and statistics of topo-logical parameters were computed over 100 instances.

F. Cartesian graph model of CeNN

The deterministic Cartesian graph model of CeNN wascreated by ensuring that every neuron is connected to itsspatially nearest neurons. Begining with (n =) 277 neu-rons placed at cartesian coordinates matching their ob-served position in the nervous system of C. elegans [15],every neuron was connected to (k =) 8 spatially nearestneurons. This model reflects preferential deterministicconnections made by a neuron based on its distance fromanother neuron.

G. Identification of specific driver neurons

We obtained the set of specific driver neurons usingmaximum matching algorithm [22]. The success of DCR,DCP models in accurate identification of driver neuronswas measured with the help of F1 score. Using the driverneurons set identified from the CeNN (34) as the basis(Details of driver neurons is provided in Table S7 of Sup-plemental Material), we identified true positives (TP )and true negatives (TN) (neurons that are correctly clas-sified) as well as false positives (FP ) and false nega-tives (FN) (neurons that were incorrectly marked asdriver neurons, and neurons that were incorrectly markedas non-driver neurons, respectively) for DCR and DCPmodels across 100 instances. The F1 score, which is usedfor computing the quality of binary classification is de-fined as,F1 = 2 TP

2 TP+FP+FN .

III. RESULTS

A. Topological properties of CeNN

Topological features of network provide insights into itsstructure and function [25, 26]. Consistent with previousreports, we observed that C. elegans neuronal network isa small world network by virtue of high clustering coef-ficient (C = 0.172) and comparable characteristic pathlength (L = 4.018), with respect to its randomized coun-terpart (CER = 0.028 and LER = 2.97) (Table I) [16].Beyond these global topological features, CeNN is knownto be over represented with feed forward motifs [17] thatare functionally associated with mechanisms of mem-ory [27]. We observed that, FFMs were significantly over-represented in CeNN (Zscore = 151.12) as compared tothose in corresponding random graphs.

TABLE I. Topological properties of CeNN and its controls

CeNN ER DD

C 0.172 0.028 ± 0.001 0.067 ± 0.003L 4.018 2.97 ± 0.01 2.981 ± 0.018nD 34 0.28 ± 0.514 22.38 ± 1.153nFFM 3776 438.3 ± 22.1 1699.6 ± 57.5

From control systems perspective CeNN can be con-trolled through a small set of driver neurons (34) to anydesired state in finite time [18]. The number of driverneurons in CeNN is significantly higher in comparisonto its random counterpart. Driver neurons in CeNN aregenotypically and phenotypically associated with biolog-ical functions such as reproduction and maintenance ofcellular processes [20]. This alludes to the fact that driverneurons serve a critical role in the neuronal architectureof C. elegans and the number of driver neurons thereforehas functional bearing on its control.

Table I depicts topological features of CeNN that arepotentially critical for specifying its function. Other

5

than the small world nature, evident from high clusteringamong neurons, the CeNN is characterized with signifi-cantly higher number of driver nodes as well as numberof feed forward motifs. While connectivity (degree) ofneurons (DD) partially explains the increase in FFMs aswell as that in nD, at the same time it cannot accountfor observed clustering. No comprehensive model thatcan explain all of these functionally relevant features ishitherto known.

B. 1D ring model of CeNN

To investigate for possible mechanisms that could havelead to the observed saturation of FFMs, we created a 1Dring model of CeNN. A directed regular ring graph withn neurons and k average synapses can have a maximumof nk(k − 1)/2 FFMs as shown in (Figure 2). Startingfrom such a regular ring graph maximally saturated with7756 FFMs, we simulated random synaptic rewiring toobserve its effect on topological features. In addition toFFM saturation, the regular graph had very high aver-age clustering coefficient (Creg = 0.35) as well as charac-teristic path-length (Lreg = 17.69). From an analogousundirected Watts and Strogatz model it was anticipatedthat with increase in synaptic rewiring the clustering aswell as path-length would decrease to approach that ofrandom graph asymptotically [16]. This simulation ofsynaptic rewiring was also expected to provide insightsinto its impact on number of FFMs and driver neurons.As shown in the Figure 3, with increasing probability ofsynaptic rewiring the number of FFMs is unaffected up top ≈ 0.01 before falling sharply. While this result pointsat a critical threshold for number of FFMs in response toprobability of synaptic rewiring, no driver neurons werepresented by the model across the simulation (nD ≈ 0 ∀0 ≤ p ≤ 1). For 1D ring graph, these results highlight acritical threshold of rewiring for which the network hasoptimum saturation of FFMs. Such a simple model canonly provide topological insights devoid of biological ba-sis. Search for a more realistic model prompted us tolook for biological constraints that may dictate synapticrewiring as well as to build a 2D model that could possi-bly reveal mechanisms that render observed controllabil-ity in CeNN.

C. CeNN follows distance constrained synapticconnectivity pattern

We measured the connectivity pattern in CeNN byenumerating number of neuron pairs that are synapti-cally connected and cartesian distance between them. Weobserved that the synaptic connections were constrainedby distance as evident from the nature of their data (Fig-ure 4). The probability of two neurons being connectedapproximately scales as a power law (P (d) ∝ d−α), withpresence of a few exceptional long distance connections.

FIG. 3. Response of 1D ring model with changing prob-ability of synaptic rewiring was measured in terms of aver-age clustering coefficient (C), characteristic path-length (L),number of FFMs (nFFM ) and number of driver nodes (nD).For intermediate values of p, the model exhibits small worldphenomenon as well as FFM saturation, but can not accountfor controllability (nD = 0 ∀ p). All parameters were normal-ized with respect to the initial ring graph (p = 0). Error barsrepresent standard deviation over 100 instances. Please seeSection S3 of Supplemental Material (Figure S4, Figure S5and Figure S6) for non-normalized data.

FIG. 4. Empirical distance constrained synaptic connectivitypattern observed in C. elegans neuronal wiring. The numberof synapses that connect neurons at distance d approximatelyfollows a power law pattern with an exponent of α = 1.92(R2 = 0.6).

To incorporate this empirical distance constrained con-nectivity pattern we created more realistic 2D models:(1) Distance constrained random (DCR) model that addsdistance constraint starting from ER control, and (2)Distance constrained plasticity (DCP) model that over-lays the distance constraint starting from the DD control.Along with the ER and DD random controls these mod-els allow us to segregate the contribution of degree (con-nectivity) vis-a-vis distance constrained synaptic wiringtowards conferring observed topological features uponCeNN.

6

FIG. 5. Response of distance constrained models of CeNN (DCR and DCP) with increasing constraint (α) measured in termsof (a) average clustering coefficient (C), (b) characteristic path-length (L), (c) number of FFMs (nFFM ), and (d) number ofdriver nodes (nD). The lower the α more heterogenous are the synaptic lengths (larger proportion of long range synapses). Forα = 0, DCR and DCP models converge to ER and DD controls, respectively. For asymptotic limits of α→∞ both the modelsconverge to the Cartesian model, a regular model with saturation of FFMs coupled with high clustering but devoid of drivernodes. While the small world nature (reflected in high clustering and low path-length) and FFM saturation is realized by bothDCR and DCP models, DCP model stands out in reproducing all key features of CeNN for 0.6 ≤ α ≤ 1.8 (highlighted withgray background). Please see Figure S7, Table S1 and Table S2 of Supplemental Material for details about nature of degreedistributions and associated data.

D. Distance constrained random model

The distance constrained random (DCR) model is a2D model in which the number of neurons, number ofsynapses and neuronal locations were preserved. Start-ing from initial random connectivity (ER) every synapsewas probabilistically rewired to follow distance constraintwith a certain α (Figure 5). The lower asymptotic limitof this model converges to ER model for α = 0. Withincreasing α the probability of long distance synapticconnections decreases. For extremely large values of αthis model converges to the Cartesian model in which ev-ery neuron is deterministically connected to its spatiallynearest neighbours. We varied the value of α between0 and 3 to assess its impact on the topology of neuralnetwork. We found that the average clustering coeffi-cient, characteristic path-length and number of FFMsmonotonously increase with increasing α. For these pa-rameters the DCR model was closest to actual neuronalnetwork of C. elegans for α = 0.6. While this modeltook us closer to CeNN, it did not reflect controllabil-ity measured in terms of nD. The driver neurons vanish

for asymptotic limits of α with maximum nD = 15.7 forα = 0.4. The fact that DD control, in which numberof synapses of every neuron is preserved, matches withCeNN better in controllability (Table I) prompted us tocreate a more refined ‘distance constrained synaptic plas-ticity model’.

E. Distance constrained synaptic plasticity model

The distance constrained synaptic plasticity (DCP)model preserves the number of synapses of every neuronover and above the number of neurons and their loca-tions. While following the distance constraint, this modelmimics synaptic rewiring that is known to take placein CeNN [14, 28]. We observed the response of topo-logical features for varying extent of distance constraint(0 ≤ α ≤ 3) (Figure 5). In addition to the clusteringand characteristic path-length, interestingly, this modelsuccessfully realised number of FFMs as well as numberof driver neurons. We found that for an intermediate dis-tance constraint of α = 0.6 this model is closest to CeNN

7

FIG. 6. Accuracy of identification of specific driver neu-rons with changing distance constraint exponent. The DCRmodel, with random synaptic connectivity pattern, faredpoorly. The performance of DCP model was consistently bet-ter than that of the DCR model indicating the critical roleplayed by the distance constraint in specifying the controlof the neuronal network. For optimum distance constraint(α = 0.4) DCP model provides the best match with the real-ity (F1 score = 0.77), better than what could be accountedfor by only neuronal connectivity (DD control; indicated witha dashed line). The spectrum of distance constraint regimefor which DCP model is closet to CeNN (0.6 ≤ α ≤ 1.8) ishighlighted with gray background.

in reproducing number of driver neurons that are criti-cal for control of the network (Figure 5(d)). This modelpresents a narrow range of distance constraint parameter(0.6 ≤ α ≤ 1.8) for which the small world nature as wellas functionally relevant features of regulatory motifs andcontrollability were realistically exhibited. The numberof driver nodes in DCP model was always higher thanthose returned by DCR model. For α < 1.8, i.e. in thepresence of strong distance constraint, DCP model re-turned significantly high number of driver nodes higherthan maximally displayed by DCR model. This pointsat the role of long distance synaptic connections in con-ferring observed nature of control in CeNN.

F. Identification of specific driver neurons

While the DCP model successfully reproduces keytopological features important for function and controlof CeNN (Figure 5), the question is whether it can alsocapture specific neurons implicated in control of the net-work and not just the number of driver neurons (Fig-ure 5(d)). We compared specific neurons identified bythe minimum driver neurons set obtained from real-worldCeNN with that obtained from distance constraint mod-els, for varying extent of distance constraint (Figure 6).Neurons that were consistently identified as driver neu-rons over 100 random instances of DCP and DCR modelswere distilled (True Positives). The classification accu-racy of these models was assessed using F1 score. Inter-estingly, we found that the performance of DCP model

was significantly better compared to DCR model (the ac-curacy of which was indistinguishable from that obtainedfrom random sampling) and superior to DD control in thepresence of dominant long distance connections (α ≤ 1).Thus DCP model is not only closer to real-world networkin terms of number of driver nodes but also accuratelyidentified specific neurons that can drive the networkdynamics. In summary, the DCP model, that embedsempirically observed phenomenon of neuronal rewiringin addition to fixed neuronal connectivity, successfullyrecreates topological features of functional relevance toC. elegans.

IV. DISCUSSION

C. elegans connectome is one of the simplest yet com-plete neural diagram known to us so far. The neuronalnetwork of this organism is responsible for many essentialcognitive functions including learning and memory [12].CeNN seemingly has evolved as a small world networkwith high clustering and low characteristic path-lengthfor functional benefits [16]. Other than the small worldglobal architecture CeNN is reported to be enriched withnumber of feed forward motifs among all possible threeand four node motifs [17]. Our results suggest that theheterogeneous composition of motifs dictated by FFMscontributes to increased clustering as well as control ofthe network.

Analysis of neuronal architecture of CeNN has revealedthat the network is optimally wired [7, 29] and is dictatedby constraints [8, 30]. Till date a few simple null modelsof CeNN have been implemented with network featureconstraints [23, 24]. These studies suggest that neuronalconnectivity plays a key role in rendering clustering aswell as presentation of as many driver neurons as ob-served in CeNN [18, 24]. None of these models has beenable to explain all network features, especially clusteringand number of driver neurons, claimed to be of biologicalrelevance [18, 20].

Here, for the first time, we present a distance con-strained synaptic plasticity model that accounts for highclustering, FFMs saturation and large number of drivernodes. With a 1D ring model maximized for feed forwardmotifs, we show that such a model exhibits critical phe-nomenon in response to increased probability of synap-tic rewiring. While this simple model lends interestinginsights into the mechanisms of CeNN architecture, itcannot capture the aspect of controllability. Rooted inempirical observation of distance constraint followed inneuronal connections, we built more realistic 2D distanceconstrained models with random connectivity (DCR) anddegree preserved connectivity (DCP). The latter model,that mimics real-world C. elegans neuronal wiring andfollows a distance constrained synaptic plasticity mech-anism, comes closest to the CeNN in presenting smallworld architecture, dominance of FFMs and nature ofcontrollability within a narrow range of free variable α.

8

The DCP model also successfully captures specific driverneurons with impressive accuracy. Our results suggest

that the extent of synaptic plasticity in CeNN is opti-mized so as to acquire key structural and dynamical net-work features.

[1] E. Kandel, J. Schwartz, and T. Jessel, Principles of Neu-ral Science, 4th ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2000).

[2] O. Sporns, Networks of the Brain (MIT press, 2011).[3] J. G. White, E. Southgate, J. N. Thomson, and S. Bren-

ner, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:Biological Sciences 314, 1 (1986).

[4] B. Zingg, H. Hintiryan, L. Gou, M. Y. Song, M. Bay,M. S. Bienkowski, N. N. Foster, S. Yamashita, I. Bow-man, A. W. Toga, and H.-W. Dong, Cell 156, 1096(2014).

[5] A.-S. Chiang, C.-Y. Lin, C.-C. Chuang, H.-M. Chang, C.-H. Hsieh, C.-W. Yeh, C.-T. Shih, J.-J. Wu, G.-T. Wang,Y.-C. Chen, C.-C. Wu, G.-Y. Chen, Y.-T. Ching, P.-C.Lee, C.-Y. Lin, H.-H. Lin, C.-C. Wu, H.-W. Hsu, Y.-A.Huang, J.-Y. Chen, H.-J. Chiang, C.-F. Lu, R.-F. Ni, C.-Y. Yeh, and J.-K. Hwang, Current Biology 21, 1 (2011).

[6] O. Sporns, NeuroImage 80, 53 (2013).[7] B. L. Chen, D. H. Hall, and D. B. Chklovskii, PNAS

103, 4723 (2006).[8] E. K. Towlson, P. E. Vertes, S. E. Ahnert, W. R. Schafer,

and E. T. Bullmore, The Journal of Neuroscience 33,6380 (2013).

[9] K. L. Howe, B. J. Bolt, S. Cain, J. Chan, W. J. Chen,P. Davis, J. Done, T. Down, S. Gao, C. Grove, T. W. Har-ris, R. Kishore, R. Lee, J. Lomax, Y. Li, H.-M. Muller,C. Nakamura, P. Nuin, M. Paulini, D. Raciti, G. Schin-delman, E. Stanley, M. A. Tuli, K. Van Auken, D. Wang,X. Wang, G. Williams, A. Wright, K. Yook, M. Berriman,P. Kersey, T. Schedl, L. Stein, and P. W. Sternberg, Nu-cleic Acids Research 44, D774 (2016).

[10] Z. Altun and D. Hall, URL http://www. wormatlas. org1487 (2002).

[11] N. Chatterjee and S. Sinha, Progress in Brain Research168, 145 (2008).

[12] E. L. Ardiel and C. H. Rankin, Learning & Memory (ColdSpring Harbor, N.Y.) 17, 191 (2010).

[13] O. Hobert, Journal of Neurobiology 54, 203 (2003).[14] E. R. Kandel, Y. Dudai, and M. R. Mayford, Cell 157,

163 (2014).[15] W. K. Yoonsuck Choe, BH McCormick, Society of Neu-

roscience Abstracts 30 (2004).[16] D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Nature 393, 440 (1998).[17] R. Milo, S. Shen-Orr, S. Itzkovitz, N. Kashtan,

D. Chklovskii, and U. Alon, Science 298, 824 (2002).[18] Y.-Y. Liu, J.-J. Slotine, and A.-L. Barabasi, Nature 473,

167 (2011).[19] C. Lin, Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on 19,

201 (1974).[20] R. Badhwar and G. Bagler, PLoS ONE 10, e0139204

(2015).[21] U. Alon, An Introduction to Systems Biology: De-

sign Principles of Biological Circuits (Chapman andHall/CRC Press, 2007).

[22] A. Pothen and C.-J. Fan, ACM Transactions on Mathe-matical Software 16, 303 (1990).

[23] P. Erdos and a. Renyi, Publicationes Mathematicae 6,

290 (1959).[24] S. Maslov and K. Sneppen, Science 296, 910 (2002).[25] R. Albert and A. L. Barabasi, Reviews of Modern Physics

74, 47 (2002).[26] S. N. Dorogovtsev, Lectures on Complex Networks (Ox-

ford University Press, 2010).[27] R. Mozzachiodi and J. H. Byrne, Trends in Neurosciences

33, 17 (2010).[28] K. Shen and C. I. Bargmann, Cell 112, 619 (2003).[29] A. Perez-Escudero and G. G. de Polavieja, Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United Statesof America 104, 17180 (2007).

[30] R. K. Pan, N. Chatterjee, and S. Sinha, PLoS ONE 5,e9240 (2010).

9

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

S1. THREE NODE MOTIF CLASSIFICATION

Motifs are patterns of local connectivity among nodes that are present in numbers significantly higher than expectedby chance. The pattern of connectivity among 13 three node connected digraphs could be divided into angular motifsand triangular motifs (Figure S1). Angular motifs are linear three node sub-structures, whereas triangular motifscomprise of three nodes subgraphs with either unidirectional or bidirectional edges. For our studies, we computednumber of feed forward motifs, nFFM , (among unidirectional triangular motifs) that are prevalent in many real worldnetworks including CeNN. In CeNN, feed forward motifs are most prevalent among all unidirectional motifs as shownin Figure S2.

FIG. S1. Classification of three node subgraphs

FIG. S2. Statistics for unidirectional three node motifs depicting over-representation of feed forward motifs. The Z-Score wascomputed in comparison to 100 instances of random controls (ER) of CeNN.

10

S2. 1D RING MODEL OF CENN

Following is an illustration of 1D ring model with 20 nodes and 4 outgoing synapses for every node(n = 20 andk = 4) (Figure S3).

FIG. S3. Regular graph for maximum number of Feed forward motifs with graph growth. Edges are directed and point fromnodes to nearest neighbours along with neighbour of neighbours and so on. This representation if for n = 20 and k = 4.

S3. RESPONSE OF CENN 1D RING MODEL TO REWIRING

Starting from a 1-D regular ring graph maximally saturated with 7756 FFMs, we simulated random synapticrewiring to observe its effect on topological features. In addition FFMs saturation, the regular graph had very highaverage clustering coefficient (Creg = 0.35) as well as characteristic path-length (Lreg = 17.69). Figure (S4, S5 andS6) shows with increasing probability of synaptic rewiring the number of FFMs is unaffected up to p ≈ 0.01 beforefalling sharply. These are true value figures from whcih one can estimate the change in number of each parameterwith changing value of p.

FIG. S4. Response of average clustering coefficient to rewiring.

11

FIG. S5. Response of characteristic path-length to rewiring.

FIG. S6. Response of number of feed forward motifs to rewiring.

12

S4. DEGREE DISTRIBUTION OF CENN, ITS CONTROLS AND DISTANCE CONSTRAINEDMODELS

Figure S7 depicts the degree distribution of CeNN in comparison to its random controls (ER and DD) as well asdistance constrained models (DCR and DCP).

FIG. S7. Degree distributions of CeNN, its controls and distance constrained models.

13

S5. TOPOLOGICAL FEATURES OF DCR

TABLE S1. Differential topological properties of distance constraint random model at different values of α starting from anER control.

Average Characteristic Number of Number ofExponent clustering coefficient (C) path-length (L) driver neurons (nD) feed forward motifsα = 0 (ER) 0.032 ± 0.001 2.968 ± 0.007 0.26 ± 0.441 610.55 ± 37.59α = 0.2 0.032 ± 0.002 3.048 ± 0.026 13.75 ± 2.536 563.91 ± 29.212α = 0.4 0.033 ± 0.001 3.068 ± 0.026 15.70 ± 2.866 612.19 ± 33.902α = 0.6 0.039 ± 0.002 3.14 ± 0.028 15.24 ± 2.934 721.21 ± 38.011α = 0.8 0.048 ± 0.002 3.211 ± 0.042 14.66 ± 2.952 875.83 ± 40.081α = 1.0 0.064 ± 0.003 3.334 ± 0.044 13.62 ± 2.784 1131.84 ± 53.844α = 1.2 0.085 ± 0.004 3.49 ± 0.07 11.82 ± 2.418 1447.24 ± 65.112α = 1.4 0.108 ± 0.004 3.689 ± 0.099 9.37 ± 2.299 1816.30 ± 73.181α = 1.6 0.136 ± 0.005 3.931 ± 0.14 8.08 ± 2.246 2231.32 ± 87.442α = 1.8 0.169 ± 0.006 4.185 ± 0.266 7.23 ± 2.287 2719.38 ± 97.224α = 2.0 0.196 ± 0.007 4.426 ± 0.408 5.73 ± 1.89 3114.38 ± 108.00α = 2.2 0.227 ± 0.008 4.589 ± 0.617 5.09 ± 1.682 3562.71 ± 121.276α = 2.4 0.256 ± 0.008 4.744 ± 0.661 4.98 ± 1.826 3985.73 ± 121.322α = 2.6 0.28 ± 0.008 4.726 ± 0.709 4.46 ± 1.72 4364.37 ± 118.252α = 2.8 0.305 ± 0.008 4.976 ± 0.843 4.17 ± 1.596 4738.90 ± 124.48α = 3.0 0.326 ± 0.008 5.138 ± 0.856 3.93 ± 1.725 5035.94 ± 120.082α→∞Cartesian 0.624 10.394 0 10153

S6. TOPOLOGICAL FEATURES OF DCP

TABLE S2. Differential properties of distance constraint synaptic plasticity model at different values of α starting from DDcontrol.

Average Characteristic Number of Number ofExponent clustering coefficient (C) pathlength (L) driver neurons (nD) feed forward motifsα = 0 (DD) 0.067 ± 0.003 2.98 ± 0.018 22.38 ± 1.153 1699.56 ± 57.496α = 0.2 0.047 ± 0.002 3.116 ± 0.024 20.37 ± 2.427 1155.70 ± 51.703α = 0.4 0.051 ± 0.002 3.133 ± 0.034 22.37 ± 2.863 1379.11 ± 61.456α = 0.6 0.058 ± 0.003 3.182 ± 0.033 23.66 ± 2.503 1667.59 ± 66.845α = 0.8 0.069 ± 0.003 3.286 ± 0.041 23.07 ± 2.808 2026.05 ± 72.395α = 1.0 0.086 ± 0.004 3.423 ± 0.055 21.51 ± 3.422 2402.08 ± 97.428α = 1.2 0.107 ± 0.005 3.58 ± 0.075 19.70 ± 2.333 2832.55 ± 89.72α = 1.4 0.131 ± 0.005 3.79 ± 0.112 17.62 ± 2.112 3263.43 ± 106.606α = 1.6 0.158 ± 0.006 4.063 ± 0.16 16.36 ± 1.784 3726.71 ± 109.069α = 1.8 0.186 ± 0.006 4.384 ± 0.317 15.89 ± 1.377 4150.42 ± 106.657α = 2.0 0.215 ± 0.007 4.615 ± 0.439 15.67 ± 1.28 4597.74 ± 114.656α = 2.2 0.241 ± 0.007 4.829 ± 0.576 15.55 ± 1.167 5025.00 ± 120.231α = 2.4 0.266 ± 0.008 4.947 ± 0.702 15.28 ± 1.092 5391.46 ± 114.416α = 2.6 0.288 ± 0.009 5.256 ± 0.902 15.05 ± 0.947 5722.95 ± 121.129α = 2.8 0.311 ± 0.008 5.256 ± 1.046 14.95 ± 0.925 6084.32 ± 118.954α = 3.0 0.328 ± 0.009 5.395 ± 1.002 15.10 ± 0.959 6339.36 ± 131.354α→∞Cartesian 0.624 10.394 0 10153

14

S7. LIST OF C. ELEGANS DRIVER NEURONS

TABLE S3. Driver neurons of CeNN.Driver neurons PDB, PVT, RMEL, RMER, SABVL, SABVR,of CeNN SIADL, SIADR, SIAVL, SIAVR, SIBDL, SIBDR,

SIBVL, SIBVR, VB11, VB3, VB4, VB5, VB6,VB7, VB8, VB9, VC2, VD10, VD11, VD12, VD13,VD3, VD4, VD5, VD6, VD7, VD8, VD9