Spike timing dependent plasticity: a consequence of more fundamental learning rules.

Spike timing dependent plasticity (STDP) is a phenomenon in which the precise timing of spikes affects the sign and magnitude of changes in synaptic strength. STDP is often interpreted as the comprehensive learning rule for a synapse - the "first law" of synaptic plasticity. This interpretation is made explicit in theoretical models in which the total plasticity produced by complex spike patterns results from a superposition of the effects of all spike pairs. Although such models are appealing for their simplicity, they can fail dramatically. For example, the measured single-spike learning rule between hippocampal CA3 and CA1 pyramidal neurons does not predict the existence of long-term potentiation one of the best-known forms of synaptic plasticity. Layers of complexity have been added to the basic STDP model to repair predictive failures, but they have been outstripped by experimental data. We propose an alternate first law: neural activity triggers changes in key biochemical intermediates, which act as a more direct trigger of plasticity mechanisms. One particularly successful model uses intracellular calcium as the intermediate and can account for many observed properties of bidirectional plasticity. In this formulation, STDP is not itself the basis for explaining other forms of plasticity, but is instead a consequence of changes in the biochemical intermediate, calcium. Eventually a mechanism-based framework for learning rules should include other messengers, discrete change at individual synapses, spread of plasticity among neighboring synapses, and priming of hidden processes that change a synapse's susceptibility to future change. Mechanism-based models provide a rich framework for the computational representation of synaptic plasticity.

New algorithms for automated phylogenetic reconstruction using artificial intelligence and data mining techniques

Academic and industrial research in the late 90s have brought about an exponential explosion of DNA sequence data. Automated expert systems are being created to help biologists to extract patterns, trends and links from this ever-deepening ocean of information. Two such systems aimed on retrieving and subsequently utilizing phylogenetically relevant information have been developed in this dissertation, the major objective of which was to automate the often difficult and confusing phylogenetic reconstruction process. ^ Popular phylogenetic reconstruction methods, such as distance-based methods, attempt to find an optimal tree topology (that reflects the relationships among related sequences and their evolutionary history) by searching through the topology space. Various compromises between the fast (but incomplete) and exhaustive (but computationally prohibitive) search heuristics have been suggested. An intelligent compromise algorithm that relies on a flexible “beam” search principle from the Artificial Intelligence domain and uses the pre-computed local topology reliability information to adjust the beam search space continuously is described in the second chapter of this dissertation. ^ However, sometimes even a (virtually) complete distance-based method is inferior to the significantly more elaborate (and computationally expensive) maximum likelihood (ML) method. In fact, depending on the nature of the sequence data in question either method might prove to be superior. Therefore, it is difficult (even for an expert) to tell a priori which phylogenetic reconstruction method—distance-based, ML or maybe maximum parsimony (MP)—should be chosen for any particular data set. ^ A number of factors, often hidden, influence the performance of a method. For example, it is generally understood that for a phylogenetically “difficult” data set more sophisticated methods (e.g., ML) tend to be more effective and thus should be chosen. However, it is the interplay of many factors that one needs to consider in order to avoid choosing an inferior method (potentially a costly mistake, both in terms of computational expenses and in terms of reconstruction accuracy.) ^ Chapter III of this dissertation details a phylogenetic reconstruction expert system that selects a superior proper method automatically. It uses a classifier (a Decision Tree-inducing algorithm) to map a new data set to the proper phylogenetic reconstruction method. ^