Uncovering the Complexity of Single Neurons: A Look into Homoclinic Orbits

  • Thread starter Thread starter mrspeedybob
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Complexity Neurons
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the complexity of neurons in the human brain, which number between 85 to 100 billion. While neurons can be modeled similarly to transistors, they possess intricate structures and functionalities that differentiate them from simple electronic components. Neurons can act as both integrators and oscillators, and their behavior is influenced by various factors, including dendritic properties, synapse types, and neuron-glia interactions. The Hodgkin-Huxley model serves as a foundational framework for understanding neuron dynamics, though it simplifies the neuron to a single compartment. More complex phenomena, such as bursting and oscillations, require multi-dimensional models, as two-dimensional models cannot accurately represent these behaviors due to limitations in trajectory intersections. The conversation also touches on the potential for abstraction in modeling neurons while acknowledging that real biological neurons exhibit significant complexity beyond these simplified representations.
mrspeedybob
Messages
869
Reaction score
65
A brief internet search revealed that the number of neurons in a human brain is in the 85 - 100 billion ballpark. (reference) What I could not find was any clear indication of how complex a single neuron is. Is the brain like a network of 85 - 100 billion transistors or 85 - 100 billion super-computers?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Closer to the transistors than the supercomputers, but nonethless a single neuron does have many compartments. However, sometimes we can get away with modelling it as a single compartment, eg. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10436067 treats the Purkinje cell as if it had just one compartment, although it clearly has a complex structure http://www.coloradocollege.edu/academics/dept/neuroscience/course/slides/histology-and-cellular-.dot . On the other hand, some phenomena require taking the shape of the neuron and the differences between the compartments into account, eg. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20364143. (I'm using "compartments" loosely, it just means things are different in differents parts of the neuron. In general things can change smoothly, and not in discrete steps that "compartments" might imply.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A canonical model for studying the neuron is the Hodgkin Huxley model, a four dimensional system of differential equations. This is still just a single compartment, but the single compartment can do a lot of things.

Neurons can function both as https://www.tapr.org/images/dsp4.figure_3.jpg and integrators; a bit more complex than transistors, I think, but definitely not a super computer (unless maybe you buy into microtubule quantum cosnciousness, but I think that's still in crackpot realm).
 
Last edited:
There's also dendritic properties and subthreshold membrane oscillations, both of which can carry out complex computations on inputs to a neuron.
 
... not to mention neuron-glia interactions, calcium spikes, multiple synapse types, plasticity, gap junctions... plus all the complex machinery that other cells in the body have (nucleus, mitochondria etc).

It can be very useful when modelling some phenomena to abstract neurons down to very simple models (even 2-dimensional simplifications of the Hodgkin Huxley equations can exhibit many properties mentioned above like resonating, integrating, sub-threshold oscillations, bursting, see e.g. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Adaptive_exponential_integrate-and-fire_model ), but real biological neurons are a lot more complex than these simplifications.
 
I would say synapses, dendrites, or gap junctions are more for network considerations.

But yeah, you can add ligand gated channels and genetic expression dynamics to make things more complicated, or even add more types of ion current like a persistent sodium channel.

The 2D models aren't able to truly burst except for in very specific parameter regions that produce a "homoclinic orbit". Other than that, bursting requires three dimensions, as far as I know.
 
Pythagorean said:
I would say synapses, dendrites, or gap junctions are more for network considerations.
Indeed (perhaps not dendrites), but I guess my point was that even if each neuron is simple, they can be connected together in different ways with complex synapse types, meaning that it's not necessarily just like connecting together billions of transistors.

The 2D models aren't able to truly burst except for in very specific parameter regions that produce a "homoclinic orbit". Other than that, bursting requires three dimensions, as far as I know.
I'm far from an expert on the mathematics of bursting (currently brushing up a bit here ;) ) - I'm not sure what you mean by 'true' bursting...
 
Basically, the neuron makes a bunch of oscillations before returning to the resting potential (in the scholarpedia article, notice between eac spike in the burst, the neuron doesn't return to the rest potential.

This is only possible with a third dimension, as in 2D the trajectories would intersect (which can't happen in deterministic systems as differential equations model them)

An exception to this is the homoclinic orbit, where trajectories come into an equilibrium point on a stable manifold and immediately leave via the unstable manifold, giving a similar appearance to an intersection.

If you look up homoclinic orbit you may see what I mean. Am on the phone now so linking is a pain. We can develop this more later though if you have any questions.
 
Pythagorean said:
Basically, the neuron makes a bunch of oscillations before returning to the resting potential (in the scholarpedia article, notice between eac spike in the burst, the neuron doesn't return to the rest potential.

This is only possible with a third dimension, as in 2D the trajectories would intersect (which can't happen in deterministic systems as differential equations model them)

An exception to this is the homoclinic orbit, where trajectories come into an equilibrium point on a stable manifold and immediately leave via the unstable manifold, giving a similar appearance to an intersection.

If you look up homoclinic orbit you may see what I mean. Am on the phone now so linking is a pain. We can develop this more later though if you have any questions.

Ah I see what you mean. Thanks for the explanation :)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top