Talk:Synaptic noise

Untitled

At Boston College, the students in Introduction to Neuroscience with Dr. Burdo are assigned certain Wikipedia pages to edit. We, Waleed Farag-Hebela, Kevin Murtagh, and Nina Verghis, will be working on this page. This project is part of the Society for Neuroscience's goal to improve upon Wikipedia's neuroscience articles. Information on our project can be found here. Nverghis (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Review

Good job so far. I think your article would benefit from a section devoted to the causes of synaptic noise. You allude to this in the introduction but don't elaborate on it afterwards: "Noise in neurons is due to the machinery that processes information. On the biochemical scale, noise is due to random processes in the cell – such as the production and degradation of proteins, ion channels opening and closing, vesicles fusing to the membrane, and molecules binding to their receptors." What do you mean by the machinery that processes information? I’m a little confused about the last sentence of the “Stochastic Resonance” section: “By increasing noise with computer programs, the detection of these subthreshold signals is increased.” The rest of the paragraph describes a physiological phenomenon but this sentence seems to transition to an experimental method using computers. In the “As a Positive Factor” section, I think it would be helpful to the readers if you clarify exactly how synaptic noise enhances signal detection in the visual cortex. What role does it play in the relay of information, as you describe? -Reedich (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

I thought that this topic was very interesting and informative. I also thought it really flows well from one section to the next. But I think that you can add more information and add more explanation to make it better. In some sections of the article, I thought that you guys were over simplifying things. It would be nice if you explained further on some of the things that you stated.

I think you guys can have more sections on this topic. Something like current research on synaptic noise. This can be about what things people still don't know about or are trying to figure out maybe. Also maybe sections on how it effects people directly (any related disease possibly)

I've noticed that you are missing some of the citations in the paragraph.( As a Negative Factor section for example). One small thing to add would be in the physiological relevance section, you have the term EEG recordings. I think it would be better if you actually write out what it stands for since you did not have this term before in the article. Karam91 (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Noise, or oversimplification of neurons in current models?

It strikes me that most of the current models grossly oversimplify the neuron for the purposes of simulation of networks of neurons.

This notion seems vaguely similar to modeling the internet by means of studying the blinking lights on routers. Sure, extremely limited success with this model is possible, just as corresponding blinks between a terminal and a website often would often trigger blinks from associated image or advertisement hosting, assuming it was hosted on another machine, but it does very little to model the actual functioning of the internet or its intended purpose, since the only thing such a model would tend to predict is how it is connected to itself.

When one considers the ease with which a lone cell can act in a deliberate fashion to walk up a chemical gradient, while still being required to do all the other things necessary to remain a living cell and eventually reproduce, it seems silly to suppose that cells dedicated to the purpose of information processing that were not at least several orders of magnitude more complex in their internal functioning would have evolved at all. To reduce a neuron to handful of equations, even complicated ones, describing its input and output shows a lack of appreciation for the levels of functional complexity that should be expected to exist inside of a neuron. The biological machinery operating inside of a neuron should first be modeled, with attention paid to its functioning.

This seems to be a somewhat problematic view, given what we have actually found out and do in computational neuroscience. It is not as if noise is an afterthought added into our models to make them look realistic, but something that there are good biophysiological reasons to expect, something that emerges from many of the processes and constraints in vivo (such as the biological machinery - things get awfully stochastic when you just have a few proteins and ions in a compartment), and something that might actually play certain roles in those adaptive behaviours (consider stochastic resonance, for example). Just take a look at Koch's book "Biophysics of Computation". Anders Sandberg (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge with neuronal noise?

I did a small update on the neuronal noise page, and then noticed this page. Maybe they should just be merged together? Anders Sandberg (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Project Review

When discussing synaptic noise as a negative factor, you state that if a necessary inhibitory response is lost due to synaptic noise, it could be detrimental to the cell. I would suggest maybe giving an example here to show what kind of damage this could specifically do. Additionally, in this section, I think the sentence, “Initial research about synaptic noise focused on this negative effect in signal transduction, but noise has transformed into a progressively positive aspect of signal movement” should be moved to the beginning of the section, rather than at the end, so that it is more of an introductory sentence. Lastly, in this section you mention averaging and prior knowledge as ways that cells combat the negative effects of synaptic noise. These seem to be important topic (since it is also mentioned in your “In Sensory Neurons” section) and could possibly have their own section and/or be expanded upon.

In the “In the Hippocampus” section, the sentence pertaining to gamma and theta oscillations could be a little confusing to the average reader who has not specifically researched these phenomena. I would suggest defining what the gamma and theta oscillations are. Additionally, the sentence following your discussion of gamma and theta oscillations refers to recent research that supports the role of synaptic noise in signal function in the hippocampus relating to memory, but there is no citation given. I would add a citation so people know what research you are referring to.

Also, in the sentence, “Common injuries in the hippocampus region include schizophrenia, epilepsy, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases” I would say “Common injuries to the hippocampus can result in” rather than “Common injuries I the hippocampus include”, since schizophrenia and the other symptoms themselves are not neuronal injuries, but rather diseases. Another spelling/grammatical error occurs in the “Physiological Relevance” section: “HFOs are imperative to normal to brain function”.

Lastly, you mention synaptic noise in relation to epilepsy and I wonder if this is a topic that could be expanded upon (if synaptic noise plays a significant role in epileptic seizures). There is some recent research that has expanded upon this topic, relating to rodent models of epilepsy, for instance a recent article entitled "Complexity and multifractality of neuronal noise in mouse and human hippocampal epileptiform dynamics" by Serletis, et. al that can be found on the Web of science database. However, I realize this is primary literature and I did not have much luck finding reviews on this topic.

Kelly Barry0531 (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. I think you are off to a good start with this article, but I also think there are a few sections that need to be addressed. As a general note, try to avoid wordy sentences. I found myself reading a few sections more than once just to try to figure out what you were trying to say. The previous commenter provided a few good examples of this as well. I would watch the word choice as well. For example, in the introduction you wrote “normal action potential.” Does this mean there is an abnormal action potential? If so, why is it unaffected by synaptic noise? I know what you mean, but word choice like this makes a fairly simple statement much more confusing to the reader. The same can be said for “Na action potentials”, also found in the introduction. I think in this case you are referring to the importance of Na to action potentials, so again, make sure you are avoiding wordy phrases.

I also think it might be helpful to include a section on the mechanisms of synaptic noise. You gave a nice qualitative overview of your topic, but I think you could delve into a little more detail in terms of the ion flow that produces synaptic noise. Furthermore, what receptors are important? What neurotransmitters are involved? Describing a mechanism might provide you with the opportunity to include some sort of picture as well.

I also had a very hard time trying to figure out what you were talking about in the “As a Postive Factor” paragraph under the “Implications of Synaptic Noise Section.” Given what you wrote, I am still unclear how synaptic noise is acting as a positive factor in the primary visual cortex. Does it have to do with the orientation? I was very confused when reading this section, as it does not seem to mention the relationship between the discussed example and synaptic noise.

In terms of article layout, I would place the “In the Hippocampus” and “In Sensory Neurons” sections before the implication discussions. It seemed like you jumped from your introduction section into an implication section without providing additional information about synaptic noise. Lastly, try to avoid writing the same idea more than once. As an example, you seem to restate the importance of synaptic noise to weak signal enhancement more than once (found in “Stochastic Resonance”, “As a Postive Factor”, and “In Sensory Neurons”).

All things considered, I think you guys are off to a great start with this article, despite the fact that you were given a topic which is challenging to fully characterize in a short Wikipedia article. depaloj (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review for BI481

I thought that this was a very well written article and adequately explained synaptic noise and its implications. I would start off by saying that there are a few grammatical errors I found as well as a couple run-ons that make the article sound a bit awkward. For instance, your opening paragraphs states, "This model builds upon the research of Hodgkin-Huxley model, heavily reliant on the importance of the Na+ action potentials for excitability, overlooking the presence of nonlinear and stochastic currents." I would try and separate this into two sentences that read something like, "This model builds upon the research of Hodgkin-Huxley model, which is heavily reliant on the importance of the Na+ action potentials for excitability. As proposed, this model overlooks the presence of nonlinear and stochastic currents," or something along those lines. Another example would be the continued repetition of words, especially "neurotransmitter." I understand it's difficult to find a suitable substitute for it, but there are ways in which you could have reduced the instances where "neurotransmitter" was repeated 2-3 times in a single sentence. Simply put, run-ons and repetition made reading the article awkward and distracted me from the information and effort that were put into this page.

I would have also liked if the section on "Physiological Relevance" was elaborated upon. You introduce the notion that synaptic noise is not solely because of mass signaling from surrounding neuronal impulses and then provide a single example. Though it was a relevant and interesting addition to the article, I would have liked to see more instances of synaptic noise specific to the opening statement. It would also have been possible to expand upon how or why transient signaling/synaptic noise shorten the resting potential (Side Note: do these shorten the resting potential by lowering threshold, increasing resting potential, etc. Essentially, I was wondering how this phenomenon happens mechanistically). These are just a couple simple things I think would truly add to the credibility of this article.

Overall, I enjoyed reading the page. It provided great detail about synaptic noise in a very understandable form. As mentioned, however, I would fix some grammatical errors and expand upon a few things to make this article even better. Great job guys. Emmerlin (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

As I was reading your introduction section I noticed that the sentences were difficult to understand due to the wordiness and I found myself having to reread some of the sentences over again. Keep in mind that the purpose of this project is to provide anyone that has no previous knowledge on the subject an understanding of the topic. In addition in the “Hippocampus” the following sentence needs a citation at the end “These oscillations can be partially composed of synaptic currents or synaptic noise. There is recent evidence that supports the role of synaptic noise in the signal functions within the hippocampus, and therefore in memories.”

Overall the article was well written and I liked the fact the sentences were concise and contained all the information needed to make the message clear most of the time. That being said the article may need some restructuring/rewriting to increase its readability. The section about implications is difficult to follow, I am not sure I understood the subsection “As a Positive Factor” and maybe it would be helpful to include more information about the specific mechanism behind synaptic noise. You give an overview explanation of the mechanisms, but do not expand upon it in the article “Noise in neurons is due to the machinery that processes information. On the biochemical scale, noise is due to random processes in the cell – such as the production and degradation of proteins, ion channels opening and closing, vesicles fusing to the membrane, and molecules binding to their receptors. These small-scale processes are amplified or exist in positive feedback cycles, so they are able to affect the whole cell.” Which specific proteins are responsible, which ion channels, and what specific molecules. Expansion of these mechanisms would be a great help before you dive into the implications section.

I think you guys did a great job with the difficult topic at hand, I hope my suggestions help.Mellalisa (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review for BI481

Overall, very insightful article and it just needs a few more tweaks to get over the top. As everyone has already mentioned, you do need to resolve the wordy sentences. I also believe that possible usage of how synaptic noise can affect fMRI signaling would be a good addition to this site. The fMRI wikipedia itself does briefly go into the affects of noise on fMRI signaling but they do not pay specific attention to synaptic/neuronal noise which would be a great addition to a clinical significance subtitle if you wanted to expand on it further.

When you describe synaptic noise as a negative factor, you said synaptic noise could essentially be detrimental to the cell. How is that? I think that this could be its own section by itself. We understand that it could cause cell damage but what are the mechanisms behind it? What parts of the cell are destroyed? What does that mean for the bigger picture of the surrounding cells?

Also, in the hippocampus section, you talk about theta and gamma oscillations. There needs to either be a link to its wikipedia page or you need to briefly go over it just so that the rest of this section can be understood.

In addition to the clinical significance section. I do think you should add some diseases that are linked with this concept of synaptic noise and possible explain how they are linked. You touch on how synaptic noise plays a role in epileptic seizures but you leave it at that. There is so much more you can say about this. I know it is caused by excessive activity of the brain and synaptic noise plays a role in that. But there needs to be more explanation than that.

Lastly, this has been brought up several times, BUT there needs to be a section on the mechanisms of synaptic noise. What ions are involved, what receptors (ionotropic or metabotropic or both?), what kind of neurotransmitters are used, and even a description on how these synaptic noises correspond to real action potentials.

Sorry if this may have been repeating what was already said but I think these are the small issues with the site. I think it is in good standing right now. Good luck with the rest of the updating! Lakkisn (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey guys, I just want to start off by saying that you guys did a really nice job with article. Your section on the implication of synaptic noise was particularly strong, and the comparison of synaptic noise as a positive vs. negative factor was interesting to read. Additionally, I think that the sections where you talk about the role and significance of synaptic noise in different areas (hippocampus, and sensory neurons) really helped to give the reader a clear understanding of your topic, and the role that it plays in relation to the nervous system.

That being said, I think that your article would benefit from some additional proofreading as there are quite a few run-on sentences, as well as awkwardly worded sentences, that tend to be distracting, and a bit confusing when it comes to trying to understand the ideas that you are trying to convey. For example, one of the sentences in your first section reads “This model build upon the research of the Hodgkin-Huxley model, heavily reliant on the importance of the Na+ action potentials for excitability, overlooking the presence of nonlinear and stochastic currents.” Here it is a bit unclear exactly what you are saying, and the sentence would really benefit from the addition of a couple of words to link your comparison together, as well as clarify the main idea of the sentence.

Additionally, I think that expanding upon your section entitled “physiological relevance” would make your article stronger, as you bring some interesting ideas to the attention of the reader, but don’t exactly elaborate enough for the reader to have a clear understanding. Also, I think that adding a section that discusses current research being done on your topic, would be a good way to end your article, as it helps to link the significance of your topic to today’s world of science.

Overall, you guys did a really nice job writing your article. With some additional proofreading, your article will become a lot stronger as your ideas will be a lot clearer. I hope you find my suggestions helpful. Good luck guys! Estradja (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review for BI481

This was a well-written article. I'm going to focus on the key additions I think it needs:

1. We jump straight from the introductory section to the "Implications" section, and I think some intervening information is required. For example, I think you need to include a major section on the actual causes of synaptic noise. You kind of hint at it in the introduction of the article with this line: "Noise in neurons is due to the machinery that processes information. On the biochemical scale, noise is due to random processes in the cell – such as the production and degradation of proteins, ion channels opening and closing, vesicles fusing to the membrane, and molecules binding to their receptors. These small-scale processes are amplified or exist in positive feedback cycles, so they are able to affect the whole cell." But this is rather unclear ("due to machinery"?), and I think it needs to be expanded upon greatly in its own subsection. Essentially, answer this question: why does synaptic noise occur in the first place?

2. You may want to include a section on the general physiology of synaptic noise. Forget the particular occurrences -- what is synaptic noise in the most general sense? Again, you begin to talk about it in the introduction, but I would expand upon it in its own subsection.

3. "Physiological consequences" section needs to include general information that may be more significant. The bit on HFOs is interesting, but I feel that it's missing the bigger picture: what does synaptic noise mean for the brain in general? How does synaptic noise affect the brain's efficiency and effectiveness as a processor of information? Noise is a problem in all of computing -- how does it affect the biological computer?

4. Another question you may want to address: what structures or physiological processes of the neuron or brain exist to help minimize and manage synaptic noise? How does the brain try to prevent it?

5. Lastly: are there any diseases, conditions, or mutations that increase the level of synaptic noise within the brain? Are certain levels of synaptic noise associated with certain behaviors or conditions?

I know you may not see it fit to address EVERY question I've posed here, but hopefully some of them will be useful for you!

Best,

Sommerro (talk)

Response to Peer Reviews

Thank you so much for all of the feedback. Researching this topic was difficult, but with the guidance from these suggestions we were able to better structure our work to see what sections needed more detail. First, we added a section about current research and included work that is ongoing in an attempt to further understand synaptic noise. In this section we touched upon fMRI. We decided that much more information wouldn’t be necessary because there is an in depth page that already exists, and is now linked to this page. The specific type of noise that is involved with fMRI is unknown, which is why we couldn’t address it too much.

A big issue with the page was the lack of a clear description of the mechanisms of synaptic noise and this was given quite a bit of attention. We included a clearer definition in the introduction and dedicated a section to the origins.

The part in “As a Positive Factor” dealing with sensory neurons was removed because it was too unclear and would require further explanations which didn’t seem readily accessible from the sources available.

A section has been added to include how the CNS deals with and manages synaptic noise.

The spelling, grammar, wording, and layout of the article as a whole has been reviewed and all the suggested changes in this respect have been implemented. Appropriate citations were added where they needed to be as well. The repetition of the word “neurotransmitter” was reduced as much as possible.

Many reviews requested a section regarding how synaptic noise affects humans directly, in terms of diseases or disorders. After much research, we concluded that the closest instance of this is synaptic noise’s role in epilepsy. That being said, the epilepsy section has been expanded upon for an easier understanding.

In terms of the “In the Hippocampus” section, the gamma and theta oscillations were detailed further to make this aspect clearer. The page is now linked to gamma and theta waves for more information.

As noted, in the physiological section, the term EEG was written out and linked to the page so that it was more clear. The section in general was expanded and relevant examples were included to provide a more complete picture.

The negative aspect of synaptic noise was reworded to make it easier to understand. Synaptic noise doesn’t harm the cell, but the way we had it before made it sound like this was the case, which we think is what led to some of the confusion in the reviews. Synaptic noise affects the transmission of signals, which can be harmful if signals aren’t received intact or reliably.

In terms of merging this page with that of neuronal noise, based on our research, neuronal noise seems to be more general, and synaptic noise falls under this category. Now that there is more information on the synaptic noise page we feel that they don’t need to be merged, although before they could have been because this page wasn’t fully developed. Nverghis (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)