| Home | Genome | Blast / Blat | WormMart | Batch Sequences | Markers | Genetic Maps | Submit | Searches | Site Map |

As well as looking at typical local interactions between neurons in the nerve ring the completeness of the information in the database allows us to investigate the large scale structure of the neural circuitry. We can ask such questions as: what is the processing depth from sensory input to motor output, i.e. how many intermediary neurons are there?, and to what extent is the circuitry unidirectional, progressing linearly from input to output? It is unlikely to be completely directional; one expects to find a certain amount of feedback, both in control-type circuits, in analogy to electrical engineering, where feedback can be used to adjust gain and bias to optimise the response to stimuli, and in rhythmic pattern generators if they exist. In fact the questions of processing depth and directionality are related, since it is necessary to have ordered the circuit diagram before being able to count the number of intermediary neurons between sensory input at the top and motor output at the bottom. I shall therefore consider first the extent to which the circuit diagram can be directionally ordered.
Let us consider the network of chemical synapses and ignore
gap junctions for the time being since, although they can be
rectifying and directional, one can not detect any directionality
from electron micrographs. The aim is to vertically order the
neurons so that as many as possible of the synapses point
downwards, with their presynaptic neuron above the postsynatic
neuron in the ordering. This was done with a sorting algorithm
that is described in the appendix.
In fact the operation
was carried out with combined data for neuronal classes, rather
than with the individual cells, since all the members of the same
class should occupy the same functional position in the circuitry.
Since the earlier analysis suggested that there was a core set of
connections that were almost always present, to which were added a
number of sporadic connections consisting of only one or two
synapses, orderings were obtained for two sets of data, one made by
adding all the synapses that were seen in at least three out of the
four possible places (left and right sides in both H and U series).
In the latter case the few synapses between two unpaired cells were
only counted if they appeared in both the H and the U series. This
more stringent synapse set is the same as the set of consistent
synapses discussed in Chapter 7. For ease of comparison the summed
data were divided by two and the stringent data multiplied by two
so that both sets gave numbers in terms of synapses per animal.
The results suggest that on a large scale the circuitry is
very directional, and that almost all the chemical synaptic
feedback that does take place is in the form of reciprocal
synapses. The more stringent set of data could be arranged so that
more than 95% of the connections pointed downward, leaving only
140 out of 2890 (4.8%) pointing upward (figure 8.1). Of these,
116 were involved in reciprocal connections, which have to
contribute upward synapses because they have synapses in both
directions. This leaves only 24 persistently seen synapses that
are involved in upward connections, 12 per side. These 12 synapses
are distributed over 11 connections, so there is no case in the
whole nerve ring of strong, consistently seen, indirect synaptic
feedback. However it appears that direct feedback using reciprocal
connections is an important feature of the circuitry, since
reciprocal connections contained 378 downward synapses as well as
the 132 reverse synapses already mentioned, therefore accounting
for 20% (494/2890) of the persistently observed synapses.
Figure 8.1
All the neuronal classes in the nerve ring arranged in the optimal vertical
ordering to minimise the number of upward chemical synapses. The next
three pages contain 8.1 (a), (b) and (c). Each has the classes arranged in
the same positions, but shows different sets of connections.
(a) shows all the chemical synaptic connections in the stringent set with 5
or more synapses with fine lines, and those with 10 or more synapses with
heavy lines. Sensory neurons are indicated by a bar above the cell name,
and motor neurons by a bar underneath the class name. Four subjective
groupings of related neurons are encircled. These are discussed further in
the text.
(b) shows all the chemical synaptic connections in the stringent
set.
(c) shows all the gap junctional connections in the stringent set.



It was not possible to order the averaged data so clearly. In that case there were 3898 synapses per animal, of which 386 (9.9%) pointed upwards in the arrangement that had been found to be best for the stringent data. When the ordering was specifically optimised for the averaged data the number of upward synapses was only reduced to 328 (8.4%), nearly twice the percentage that was seen with the stringent data. These observations support the suggestion made in Chapter 7 that at least a proportion of the additional synapses are different in nature from the consistently observed synapses, having perhaps a more random distribution.
Several groups of neurons have been indicated in figure 8.1
on subjective grounds because they seem to be involved in a
particular part of the circuitry. Two sensory and two motor
groupings have been defined. One contains neurons associated with
the amphid sensilla, whicha re multiply innervated sensilla on
either side at the front of the head, probably concerned mainly
with chemo- and osmo-detection (Ward et al., 1975). As well as
sensory receptor neurons there are a number of interneuron classes
that appear to be predominantly concerned with processing
information from these receptors. The other sensory grouping
contains a second set of neurons with sensory receptors at the
front of the head, distinct from the amphids. These all have their
cell bodies in front of the nerve ring, and tend to form direct
connections to motor circuitry (or directly to muscle in the cases
of URA). There are additional sensory neurons, such as the
touch neurons (ALML/ALMR, AVM, Chalfie et al., 1985) that are not
assigned to either of these classes. The two motor circuitry
groupings contain the interneurons that innervate ventral cord
motor neurons on the one hand, and some of the circuitry that
controls neuromuscular activity onto head muscles from the nerve
ring on the other hand.
Figure 8.2 shows the amphid
circuitry and part of the ring motor circuitry in greater detail,
including all the synaptic connections. Although there are several
examples of reciprocal feedback they do not interlink the whole
circuitry. The groups of neuronal classes that are connected so
that each neuron could potentially influence all the others in
group are outlined in figure 8.2 (the connection between RIVL/RIVR and
AIBL/AIBR is isolated from motor
activity. In this sense even the reciprocal feedback that is seen
only has a limited effect on the overall directionality of the
circuitry.
One important consideration that might
invalidate the suggestion of a highly directed flow is that we have
ignored gap junctions. Figure 8.1 © shows the distribution of all
the gap junctional connections in the nervous system. Some of
these are within groupings identified previously. There are also
some classes that make a lot of gap junctions, but very few
chemical synapses (e.g. RIG, RMG, AVKL/AVKR). It is of course not known
whether or not any of these gap junctions are rectifying and thus
possibly directional themselves.
However in at least one case a gap junctional connection has been shown to be functionally important in one direction, by removing the cell involved with a focussed laser beam (Chalfie et al., 1985).

The ordering of the circuitry allows us to count the number
of synapses between sensory input and motor output. The method
used calculates a hypothetical flow of information through the
synaptic connections down through the nervous system (see Appendix
for details). It necessarily treats all the observed synapses as
having equal functional effect and so the resulting estimates are
probably physiologically very inaccurate. However they provide a
reasonable basis for a broad comparison of the flow of information
from different sensory modalities.
There are on average 3.5
chemical synapses between sensory neurons and the head muscles,
basing the calculation on the more stringent data and the ordering
derived for in in section 8.1. As might be expected, there is a
lot of variation in the number of intermediary connections. The
actual number can vary from a minimum of one in the case of
neuromuscular output from the sensory motor neurons URA to
a maximum of 16 for a particular sequence of synaptic connections
starting from the amphid receptor ASIL/ASIR. However this upper band is
somewhat misleading; the average distance from muscle of any given
neuronal class is never greater than 5.9 synapses (for ASJL/ASJR).
Nevertheless there is clear systematic variation dependent on the
type of sensory receptor being considered. Input from the amphid
receptors takes the longest time on average to reach muscle (4.4
synapses), reflecting the extra stage of amphid specific
interneuron processing shown in figure 8.2. The other head sensory
input is rapid, taking only 2.2 synapses on average, and the
average value for the remaining sensory neuronal classes is 3.2
synapses.
The same method that calculates depth of
processing also generates an estimate of the proportion of ßensory
influence" that reaches different final types of output (see the
appendix for details). There are three major discernible targets
for output from the nerve ring: the head musculature via direct
neuromuscular synapses, the ventral cord motor circuitry
interneurons, and the RIPL/RIPR class of neurons, which provide the sole
connection to the pharyngeal nervous system, which is thought to
pump constitutively unless repressed by RIPL/RIPR. In general the number
of synapses connecting sensory neurons to the ventral cord
circuitry or RIPL/RIPR is about one less than the number needed to reach
the head musculature, possibly because there is an extra layer of
motor pattern generating circuitry (considered further in the
discussion). The "fast" head sensory neurons have proportionally
more output onto the head muscles, and provide the majority of
output onto RIPL/RIPR. It seems reasonable to suggest that they carry out
much of the short range sensing involved in moving the head to feed
and searching out a path round obstacles for the body to follow
when moving. The amphids generate a balanced number of connections
to both the head muscles and ventral cord interneurons, and have no
link with RIPL/RIPR. The other sensory neurons provide comparatively more
input onto the ventral cord interneurons. This is perhaps
reasonable because many of their sensory endings are in various
other parts of the body, rather than being at the tip of the head.
The strongest general feature of the C. elegans nerve ring
circuitry is its extremely high directionality. The neuronal
classes can be ordered in such a way that less than 5% of the
synapses point backward. This organisation is clearly very
different from that of many higher organisms. For example in the
mammalian cortex every projection from one area of cortex to
another seems to be matched by a reverse projection (van Essen,
1979). However there are also structures that are only a few
synapses deep that seem to be fairly directional, such as the
vertebrate retina (Sterling, 1983).
Almost all the synapses
that do point backward are members of reciprocal connections, which
were shown in Chapter 7 to be almost as frequent as would be
expected on the basis of the distribution of directed synapses.
There are almost no persistently seen synapses involved in indirect
feedback. In addition the feedback that is seen appears to be
largely restricted to affecting small groups of neuronal classes,
or modules. In the case of the circuitry shown in figure 8.2 it is
possible to suggest functions for the observed modules in terms of
the different stages of processing needed. However in discussing
the possible function of elements of the circuitry one should bear
in mind that all the data is anatomical; there is no functional or
physiological data.
The outputs of the amphid receptors
shown in figure 8.2 appear to be processed fairly independently
from the rest of the sensory input. Their output is eventually
concentrated onto the interneurons AIZL/AIZR, AIAL/AIAR and AIBL/AIBR. AIZL/AIZR and AIBL/AIBR
synapse onto RIBL/RIBR, RIML/RIMR and RIAL/RIAR, the major interneurons that appear
to be involved in controlling the head musculature. These RIX
neurons then synapse onto the RMD connections).
Feedback in the AIM, ASJL/ASJR, PVQL/PVQR, ASK module could best be used
to modulate their own receptor output. The ASEL/ASER, AWCL/AWCR, AIYL/AIYR, AIZL/AIZR, AIAL/AIAR
group combines the output of a set of, mainly chemosensory, amphid
receptors. The AIBL/AIBR, RIBL/RIBR, RIML/RIMR group receives input from other
modalities as well as the processes chemosensory data from the
neurons seen in figure 8.2, and has output to both the head and
body motor circuitry (RIML/RIMR is ittself a head motor neuron). It may
make the basic decision on body movement, which the RIAL/RIAR, RIVL/RIVR module then executes. The feedback in this final motor output
module, both between the interneurons RIAL/RIAR and RIVL/RIVR and the motor
neurons, and within the motor neuron classes themselves, may be
involved in the generation of oscillatory head movements that then
propagates backward as waves. In several respects the connections
seen here resemble those seen in central pattern generators
(oscillation generators) in other invertebrate systems (for several
examples see Model neural networks and behaviour, ed Selverston,
1985). In these other systems reciprocal connections between
neurons also appear to play an important part, and it is often seen
that neurons are multifunctional, for instance with both motor
neurons (Miller and Selverston, 1985) or command interneurons
(Getting and Dekin, 1985) taking part in the pattern generating
circuitry.
One of the proposed modules, the one containing
AIBL/AIBR, RIBL/RIBR and RIML/RIMR, contains a mixture of neurons that
subjectively appear to be part of the amphid circuitry (AIBL/AIBR), and
the motor control circuitry (RIBL/RIBR and RIML/RIMR). Much of the amphid
receptor circuitry shown at the top of figure 8.2 is concentrated
onto AIAL/AIAR and AIBL/AIBR. It appears that one of these two neurons may be
involved in feedback within the amphid circuitry, possibly to
"tune" its output, while the other is involved in feedback that may
determine the relative importance of the amphid output to the
movement of the animal. Another suggestion to explain the
organisation of AIAL/AIAR and AIBL/AIBR, made initially by J G White, is that
they receive joint input and that AIAL/AIAR inhibits AIBL/AIBR, thus causing
the combination to act as a differentiating circuit which could be
used to detect gradients during side to side head movement.
The principle of a highly directed network containing small
processing modules provides for only a very limited use of circuit
feedback. This use is to improve the versatility of small scale
processing units made out of a very few neurons. One reason that
C. elegans does not have longer loop neural feedback may be that,
having only a shallow overall processing depth, it uses sensory
feedback to perform this role. The advantage of this is that it
measures the actual, rather than the intended, outcome of motor
activity. Indeed it is thought that proprioceptive feedback may be
important in the propagation of locomotory waves down the body.
However, even if more complicated nervous systems do have more
sophisticated circuit structures, it may still be useful to
effectively isolate functional units as much as possible from the
internal working of other parts of the nervous system, even if
those working are somewhat relevant. If this is done then
additional operations can be added easily at any stage without
perturbing the rest of the system.