Blue Brain project accurately predicts connections between neurons
September 18, 2012
In a landmark paper, published this week in PNAS (forthcoming), the EPFL’s Blue Brain Project (BBP) has identified key principles that determine synapse-scale connectivity by virtually reconstructing (in supercomputer) a cortical microcircuit and comparing it to a mammalian sample.
These principles now make it possible to predict the locations of synapses in the neocortex, the researchers say.
“This is a major breakthrough, because it would otherwise take decades, if not centuries, to map the location of each synapse in the brain and it also makes it so much easier now to build accurate models,” says Henry Markram, head of the BBP.
The mystery
One of the greatest challenges in neuroscience is to identify the map of synaptic connections between neurons. Called the “connectome,” it is the holy grail that will explain how information flows in the brain.
A longstanding neuroscientific mystery has been: do all the neurons grow independently and just take what they get, as their branches bump into each other, or is a branch specifically guided by chemical signals to find all its target?
Virtual Reconstruction
To solve the mystery, a research team from the Blue Brain Project set about virtually reconstructing (simulated on a computer) a cortical microcircuit based on unparalleled data about the geometrical and electrical properties of neurons — data from over nearly 20 years of painstaking experimentation on slices of living brain tissue.
Each neuron in the circuit was reconstructed into a 3D model on a powerful Blue Gene supercomputer. About 10,000 virtual neurons were packed into a 3D space in random positions according to the density and ratio of morphological types found in corresponding living tissue. The researchers then compared the model back to an equivalent brain circuit from a real mammalian brain.
To their great surprise, they found that the locations on the model matched that of synapses found in the equivalent real-brain circuit with an accuracy ranging from 75 percent to 95 percent.
Random connections
This means that neurons grow as independently of each other as physically possible and mostly form synapses at the locations where they randomly bump into each other.
A few exceptions were also discovered, pointing out special cases where signals are used by neurons to change the statistical connectivity. By taking these exceptions into account, the Blue Brain team can now make a near perfect prediction of the locations of all the synapses formed inside the circuit.
The goal of the BBP is to integrate knowledge from all the specialized branches of neuroscience, to derive from it the fundamental principles that govern brain structure and function, and ultimately, to reconstruct the brains of different species — including the human brain — in silico. The current paper provides another proof-of-concept for the approach, by demonstrating for the first time that the distribution of synapses or neuronal connections in the mammalian cortex can, to a large extent, be predicted, EPFL scientists say. \
A Major Step Towards Accurate Models of the Brain
This discovery also explains why the brain can withstand damage and indicates that the positions of synapses in all brains of the same species are more similar than different. “Positioning synapses in this way is very robust,” says computational neuroscientist and first author Sean Hill, “We could vary density, position, orientation, and none of that changed the distribution of positions of the synapses.”
They went on to discover that the synapses’ positions are only robust as long as the morphology (form) of each neuron is slightly different from each other, explaining another mystery in the brain — why neurons are not all identical in shape. “It’s the diversity in the morphology of neurons that makes brain circuits of a particular species basically the same and highly robust,” says Hill.
Overall this work represents a major acceleration in the ability to construct detailed models of the nervous system. The results provide important insights into the basic principles that govern the wiring of the nervous system, throwing light on how robust cortical circuits are constructed from highly diverse populations of neurons — an essential step towards understanding how the brain functions.
They also underscore the value of the BBP’s constructivist approach. “Although systematically integrating data across a wide range of scales is slow and painstaking, it allows us to derive fundamental principles of brain structure and hence function,” explains Hill.

Comments (29)
by Mindsight
I wonder if this understanding will motivate research into new treatments for neurodegenerative diseases or traumatic brain injuries. It would be wonderful if we could leverage more of the automatic workings of biology to help heal people.
Imagine the benefits if fresh, healthy neurons might be precisely injected into a damaged brain (or towed into position by tiny robots?), and then trusted to grow themselves into the form needed to recover at least some of the injured person’s lost functionality.
by MrFriendly
This is pretty old news that’s been repackaged to help the Human Brain Project’s chances at securing a very large grant in Europe.
I really hope they get it.
by Editor
“pretty old news”: source?
by MrFriendly
http://www.kurzweilai.net/henry-markram-simulating-the-brain-next-decisive-years
2nd video.
by MrFriendly
Looks like it isn’t accepting my url. The source is actually on this website. Markram discusses this in the video of him at the supercomputing conference of 2011, “International Supercomputing Conference | Henry Markram on simulating the brain — the next decisive years”
2nd part.
by Guillermo
This new study is not old news. Althought the project has now been renamed the Human Brain Project
by MrFriendly
Their discovery was made a few years ago while reconstructing the cortical column. Since then, they’ve been validating the results.
It is old news, but it’s important news, and a nice proof of concept for the project.
Btw, the blue brain project hasn’t been renamed. They exist in parallel. If the grant isn’t offered to Markram and his team, they’ll continue on with the BBP, reverse-engineering the rat brain.
by Spikosauropod
Marcos, Wolfram showed how a simple rule can generate complexity. You have it backward.
by infinitos
I was reading an article back in july about the synapse and how they are critical in building a silicon brain , watching this video and the announcing of this discovery really made my day ! :)
by Bri
This approach reminds me of Craig Ventors, in relation to the human genome project. It should help reduce the tangle of connections that are being studied by numerous groups world wide. As computers get stronger they will help define what each area of the brain is actually doing. I still think they should focus on simpler organisms to figure out the principals of brain function. Each area of research adds another piece to the puzzle, no matter where it comes from.
by Hoss
These are the types of articles that separate kurzweilai from the gadget blogs. However, I see the same dilemma which Aldous Huxley foresaw, and that is once the perfect brain and physical appearance is achieved and made available to everyone, it will be the end of individuality. A 75-95% accuracy is certainly impressive, but the 5-25% unaccounted for in the model could be what makes us unique. This is one of those technologies that will have to be perfect the first attempt. You go first.
by GatorALLin
….liked that ending…..”You go first.” ……LOL
by Gabriel
I don’t agree that individuality will end — if anything individuality in the future will be more for the right reasons then the wrong ones. People with all sorts of physical problems, from the tangible to the perceptive, have had to rationalize what they have because perhaps their is nothing they can do about — if I wish I had something physically that I don’t, and I don’t want to opt for say, plastic surgery to get it, in time I will become content and love what I have and feel pride for it.
This is the normal train of thinking and is what makes for this fear of supposedly losing individuality…I find that wrong — when biotech advances enough that we will be able to make ourselves biologically ‘perfect’, we will no longer have to rationalize our physical problems, whether tangible and objective like being handicapped, or perceptive such as me hating a blemish that others don’t notice or even enjoy….again, it’s this (excessive) rationalizing of our faults that makes us overblow them and value them more then we should – its not too different then advocates of Death and that immortality is wrong.
These beliefs are natural, even beneficial, up to a certain point because their has been, for things like death, nothing else we can do about it till now and it gives us hope, and for things like appearance, it teaches us to see beyond the physical and feel more pride for yourself…however, rationalizing something bad because their is nothing else you can do about it, doesn’t make it a good thing: Death, in the end, is not something to advocate by any means, and a physical handicap/scarring/or what-have-you that I suffer from, is still a bad thing…you can rationalize the handicap you can’t change it, but that doesn’t make it. If my blemish is more fickle and not something that I really suffer from, it’s still my choice to eliminate it even if others don’t see it as a fault, and perhaps I really am better without it.
I’m all for individuality, liberty, expression…however, when we live in a world when a person can have a ‘perfect’ brain and body, we will not lose individuality – if anything, we will gain more because people will be more unique for the right reasons, such as excelling in a certain skill, then for the wrong ones such as rationalizing our physical blemishes – it’s good to feel pride for your appearance and for yourself, but that doesn’t mean we should celebrate our limits or our blemishes anymore then we should. I understand having respect for your body and yourself and not treating it as a toy to alter at any whim, but you can’t let that fear stop you from expressing your own individuality to enhance yourself if that is how you really view it.
There is alot to say on this issue, but hopefully you understand what I’m saying – I’m of the exact opposite viewpoint in that individuality will actually increase in the future…everyone will want to become genetically ‘perfect’, but that’s only skin-deep and we still will have to live and learn — like Kurzweil wrote, I can change my genes to make myself predisposed to music, I’d still have to take lessons.
And once nanotech, and especially (if) Mind-Uploading become possible, individuality will increase even more — when I can take on the appearance of somebody else, merge my thinking with someone else and so on…I will be far more expressive and unique then I ever was when I worried about getting a tattoo or not.
by Gabriel
Ugh, sorry for the choppy response – I wish we could edit posts on this website.
by Vlad
This project is very interesting, it is not some ‘high-flying’ project like BBP but it is far more realistic, they’re trying to reverse engineer the nervous system of the little worm that is called C. elegans which has only 302 neurons and 7000 synapses:
http://www.openworm.org/
BTW I don’t know why is Kurzweil so sure that reverse engineering of the human brain would be possible by 2029 or 2025 when today we cannot reverse engineer even the simplest nervous system of the C. elegans which consists of only 302 neurons and 7000 synapses!? And the first artificial neural network of the C. elegans nervous system has been around since 1986, the progress since then in understanding this simplest nervous system is very disappointing… :( Kurzweil doesn’t mention C. elegans in his book ‘The Singularity is Near’, unfortunately the fact is that the artificial neural networks are zillion times more simple than the real neurons in the brain, so we need exponential progress in understanding of this simple nervous system and of a single neuron, so I hope that the outcome of this project will be successfully and accurately simulated C. elegans nervous system, it could be a breakthrough that could pave the way for reverse engineering of the brain of higher organisms including humans in the coming decades but I’m a little bit skeptical, I believe it will be possible to reverse egnieer the human brain sooner or later but I’m pretty sure it will not be possible by 2025, but anyway Kurzweil and his ideas are great inspirations for me :)
by JamesG76
The two problems of mapping C elegans’ brain, and a human brain, are not necessarily directly related. It’s almost certain that mapping the C elegans’ brain is not going to get us much of anything directly, it may help with mapping the human brain to a degree, but maybe not enough to make it worth it. I think there will be relatively more resources put into the human brain eventually offsetting the simplicity of the C elegans’ brain.
by Gabriel
Kurzweil relies and places much faith into exponential growth – he mentions alot the Human Genome Project and the Internet which critics both derided as hopeless halfway through, until the growth kicked in and they were finished, not just ahead of schedule, but finished at all. The human brain, and really everything else, he views the same way…that it seems hopeless now, but progress will kick in faster and faster and we will accomplish in a very short amount of time what people once thought we’d never finish whatsoever.
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see :)
by Vlad
Yes, I know very well that the mapping of 1% of the the human genome took 7 years and the remaining 99% took another 7 years, and that the cost of it was $3 billion two decades ago and today it costs only $1000, the power of exponential growth is an amazing thing, but unfortunately the mapping of the human genome is not the same as the reverse engineering of the human brain, with that 1% of the human genome we had 99.99% accurate map of the genome and we will have 1% of the map of the human brain very soon but unfortunately that map of the human brain will not be 99.99% accurate, so the most important thing we need is a 99.99% accurate model of a single neuron, we don’t have it today so for the reverse engineering of the brain we need exponential progress in understanding of a singe neuron.
by Marcos Marin
“painstaking experimentation on slices of living brain tissue.”
Sounds like a Zombie’s Paradise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOfZLb33uCg
by John Middlemas
A truly landmark discovery that could make brain simulation possible. To individually map 100 billion neurons and their trillions of synapses was always an almost insurmountable problem. If much of that mapping can now be predicted by simple rules then the problem may finally be manageable. It might have been expected that there are simple rules since DNA could not contain enough information for the entire mapping. This could really accelerate AI.
by Marcos Marin
Are you even aware who this site is owned by?!
Unfortunately Wolfram’s New Kind of Science proved this argument wrong more than 10 years ago.
by Guy
@Marcos, could you clarify your comment? Which “site” are you referring to, BBP? KurzweilAI? And what “argument” are you referring to? I’m not clear on how Wolfram proved something 10 years ago that was only discovered now. I, for one, welcome dissenting voices, but summary dismissal gets us nowhere.
by melajara
Well, Wolfram’s rule 110 is the exception, not the rule, LOL.
I applaud Markram’s approach, not too reductivist but reductivist enough to make seemingly ungraspable problems tractable, here a realistic connectome.
by Spikosauropod
Wolfram showed how a simple rule can create complexity. You have it backward.
by Todor Arnaudov
Wolfram or Markram didn’t “discover” the principle, the Earth and Universe, and every living being are obvious examples of a “simpler” system producing a more “complex” result after “unfolding” and collecting data from the environment (eating is also “collecting data”). Brain won’t grow intelligent if put in a dark silent room with no limbs etc. Both the beginning and the end are “apparently” simple or complex, for the evaluators the beginning seems “simple” and the result “complex”, but it’s because the initial data seems to be better compressible than the final one, and because it’s wrongly analyzed. Even the 110 rule – try to make a 110 rule machine in this Universe having the physical laws as we know them. Building the first electronic computer required billions of years, and many many brains working together, and still – as of current knowledge of physics, how do you translate “110″ in quarks, electrons and atoms? The 110 is not simple in terms of the “machine language of Universe”, it’s simple in your mind, after your brain is trained maths etc., which is a result of thousands of years of human evolution, which is a result of billions years … In fact the end results are “simple”/”complex either, but the evaluator misses it – e.g. now you have billions of humans, which would say for themselves “we are unique” etc. – their * is unique, the humans are almost clones, even in their attitudes, capabilities, etc. There are sets of humans which are almost identical in their brains (in meaningful functional terms) – that’s how sociology predicts correctly. The same goes for technologies – millions and billions of duplicates or very slightly different (not essentially different) objects. All forms of “mass production” are examples of that fake higher complexity. Body has trillions of cells, but they work for themselves and grow like a plan, there’s no central entity that knows the state of those cells (neurons don’t connect to all cells). That’s an example of how the “simple” becomes “complex”. I’ve written more about the fake grow of complexity back 10 years ago in some of the works available there (some are not):
http://research.twenkid.com/
by star0
Sounds good for making accurate models of the brain. I wonder, though, whether it could prove helpful in scanning the connectome. I can imagine some ways that it might help.
by Gorden Russell
Mapping the brain like this is just one of the things that will save young Kim Suozzi. Ms. Angelica, can we have an update of the progress of reaching the goal for her donations?
by H.K. Fauskanger
I should like to see an update as well. Did she manage to raise the amount of cash needed for her remains to be preserved, in the hope that the information defining her can eventually be extracted and reactivated?
by Bri
I always wondered what happened to the Blue Man Group! LOL!!!