Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Homogenized $\textit{C. elegans}$ Neural Activity and Connectivity Data

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper releases a homogenized dataset of C. elegans neural activity and connectivity, combining 12 calcium-imaging studies and connectome annotations from 4 primary sources.

desk verdict A genuinely useful homogenized C. elegans data release, but the label-identity assumption is unvalidated and the pipeline description is internally inconsistent; both need fixing before the cross-lab comparability claim is safe. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12091 v4 pith:MAMUN3MM submitted 2024-11-18 q-bio.NC

Quilee Simeon , Anshul Kashyap , Konrad P Kording , Edward S Boyden This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NC
keywords C.eleganscalciumimagingconnectomeneuralactivitydatahomogenizationwhole-brainconsensusstructure-functionmodeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's aim is to make C. elegans neuroscience data comparable across labs by releasing a homogenized collection of neural activity and connectivity measurements. It assembles calcium-imaging traces from 12 published studies, covering roughly 900 worms and about 250 uniquely labeled neurons, and standardizes them by resampling to a common time step, z-scoring each neuron trace, ordering neuron columns alphabetically, and attaching a binary mask that says which neurons were labeled. It also compiles connectome annotations from 4 primary electron-microscopy and signal-propagation studies into graph-structured files, plus a consensus connectome built by averaging connection weights across datasets. If the resource is sound, a researcher can pool recordings collected under different protocols and directly ask how synaptic wiring relates to neural dynamics in a small, fully mapped nervous system.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the canonical 300-neuron coordinate system. Every worm's fluorescence traces are placed into a $T_k \times 300$ matrix with columns sorted alphabetically by standard C. elegans neuron names, and a companion binary mask $M^{(k)}$ records which neurons were labeled in that worm; the mask is kept separate from the matrix instead of zeroing unlabeled entries. On the connectivity side, the same coordinate system is used to build directed graph objects through dataset-specific preprocessor classes, with per-edge attributes for chemical synapses, gap junctions, and optional functional connectivity, and a consensus connectome is produced by averaging nonzero chemical and gap-junction weights across sources plus a weighted standard deviation.

What would settle it

Compare the same named neuron (say AWCR) in two laboratories' recordings under the same stimulus after running the pipeline: if its trace is systematically swapped with its contralateral partner or inconsistent across labs, the canonical-label assumption fails and pooled columns are not comparable; likewise, inspecting the source files for traces that were recorded but left unnamed would directly test the stated conflation of unlabeled with unmeasured neurons.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a heterogeneous collection of C. elegans recordings and wiring diagrams can be homogenized without destroying their scientific meaning. The released activity dataset represents each worm as a time-series matrix $X^{(k)} \in \mathbb{R}^{T_k \times 300}$ with columns ordered alphabetically by canonical neuron name, resampled to $\Delta t = 0.333$ s, z-scored across time per neuron, and paired with a binary mask $M^{(k)}$ of labeled neurons; the connectome half stores each source as a directed graph with chemical, gap-junction, and optional functional weights and also provides a consensus connectome formed by averaging nonzero weights across datasets. The paper's contribution is the resource and the pipeline, not a new biological mechanism: if the standardization holds, any downstream model can load these files and treat structure and function in a common neuron coordinate system.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that neuron names used by different laboratories refer to the same canonical cells, so alphabetically ordered columns and masks make recordings comparable across studies; the paper also assumes unlabeled and unmeasured neurons can be treated interchangeably.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any of the 12 activity datasets can be loaded in the same matrix format, so pooling worms across labs and protocols becomes a concatenation step rather than a format-reconciliation project.
  • Connectome files are already structured as graph tensors, so models built on graph neural networks can consume connectivity and calcium traces in a common interface.
  • The consensus connectome provides one wiring diagram with per-edge means and standard deviations, making cross-study variability in synapse counts visible.
  • The binary masks let users restrict analyses to neurons that were actually labeled, which matters for training and evaluating structure-function models.
  • A new imaging or connectome source can be added by writing one dataset-specific preprocessor subclass, so the collection can grow without restructuring the pipeline.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The entire comparison rests on labels being canonical; a direct check would be whether the same named neuron responds consistently across two labs under matched stimuli, and the paper does not report such a validation.
  • Resampling to $\Delta t=0.333$ s and z-scoring with full-trace statistics trade away fast dynamics and causal normalization, so users building real-time or spike-resolved models will need to redo preprocessing.
  • Because the paper explicitly treats unlabeled and unmeasured neurons as the same, a missing entry in the mask should not be interpreted as evidence that a neuron was silent.
  • A strong test of the resource would be to train a structure-function predictor on a subset of worms and test transfer to worms from a different laboratory dataset.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a preprocessing pipeline and two released datasets that aggregate calcium imaging neural activity from 12 C. elegans studies and connectome data from multiple electron microscopy and functional studies. The neural pipeline standardizes raw traces by organizing columns alphabetically by canonical neuron name, resampling to a common time step, optionally smoothing, z-scoring, and generating a binary mask of labeled neurons; the connectome pipeline builds graph tensors and a consensus connectome. The claimed contribution is a public, homogenized resource that supports cross-lab and cross-animal comparisons and downstream structure-function modeling.

Significance. If the identified issues are resolved, this would be a useful community resource: it consolidates 919 worms across 12 studies, provides open code and HuggingFace-hosted data, and standardizes connectomes into GNN-ready tensors. The paper is candid about several limitations, including calcium imaging's low-pass character, the mismatch between activity and connectome animals, and the subjective choices of delta-t and lambda. The main scientific risk is that the central usability claim depends on cross-lab label equivalence and on exact pipeline ordering, neither of which is currently established from the manuscript alone.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.2.3(f) and Table 1] The cross-lab comparability claim is load-bearing, but the paper never validates the assumption that a canonical neuron name such as AVAL refers to the same cell across the 12 source studies. Section 2.2.3(f) explicitly states that unlabeled and unmeasured neurons are used interchangeably, so a mask entry of zero can mean either 'no trace' or 'trace without a name'. More importantly, no test is described showing that labels from different laboratories correspond to the same anatomical cells; different registration, imaging, and identification protocols could produce label shifts or naming collisions that would silently corrupt the D-column matrices and any pooled analysis. Please add a section reporting per-source label vocabularies and label-overlap statistics, and describe an independent validation (for example, registration to a common atlas or NeuroPAL-based identification) for at least a subset of neurons.
  2. [Section 2.2.3(b)-(e) and Algorithm 1] The preprocessing order is described inconsistently. The prose in Section 2.2.3(b)-(e) states the main steps as resampling, optional smoothing, and then normalization, with normalization described as the final step in (e). Algorithm 1, however, normalizes the raw traces before smoothing and resampling. If the released code follows Algorithm 1, the output traces differ from the published prose; if it follows the prose, the algorithm listing is wrong. Either way, unambiguous reproduction of the homogenized data from the paper alone is currently impossible. Please correct the algorithm or the text and explicitly state which order was used to generate the released artifacts.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract vs. Section 2.1 and Appendix Table 5] The abstract says the connectivity dataset is compiled from 9 connectome annotations, while Section 2.1 says there are 10 distinct connectome source files and Appendix Table 5 lists 10 graph tensor files; please reconcile these counts.
  2. [Table 1] Row 9 labels the source as Leifer2023 but the cited reference [15] is Randi et al.; please use a consistent author-year label that matches the bibliography.
  3. [Section 2.2.3(e)] Equation (1) defines z-scoring with mu and sigma in R^D; please clarify that the subtraction and division are elementwise over the temporal dimension and specify whether sigma is the sample or population standard deviation.
  4. [Algorithm 1] The mask is defined as boolean(X_j != empty); since Section 2.2.3(f) conflates unlabeled and unmeasured neurons, please define exactly what non-empty means for each source file format.
  5. [Table 1 and Abstract] The abstract says approximately 900 worms, but Table 1 sums to 919; please report the exact count where possible.
  6. [References] Reference [35] is formatted as 'L. et al. Tian'; the standard form is 'Tian et al.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports aggregation and standardization of external datasets, with no fitted prediction or self-citation chain doing load-bearing work.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the construction of homogenized C. elegans neural activity and connectivity datasets from 12 imaging studies and 4 primary connectome publications. This is an aggregation and preprocessing task, not a derivation of new results from assumptions that secretly contain the conclusions. The preprocessing steps (ordering neurons alphabetically, resampling to Δt ≈ 0.333 s, optional smoothing, z-scoring, masking, and connectome averaging) operate on external source data and do not fit any parameter to a target output that is then presented as a prediction. The consensus connectome uses explicit averages of non-zero gap and chemical weights across datasets, and the weighting λ = 0.9 is stated as a subjective choice rather than fitted to a desired result. The paper does not derive any biological mechanism or predictive model whose validity depends on the dataset construction, so there is no circular derivation chain. The limitations noted in the manuscript, such as the conflation of unlabeled and unmeasured neurons and the inconsistency between the prose ordering of resampling/smoothing/normalization and Algorithm 1, are correctness and reproducibility concerns, not circularity: they do not make the output equivalent to an input by definition. Similarly, the paper cites prior work by others and by the authors' broader community, but no load-bearing premise is justified solely by a self-citation whose content is itself the claim being made. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on hand-chosen preprocessing constants and on several domain assumptions about label consistency and cross-animal comparability. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Resampling interval delta-t = 0.333 seconds
    Hand-chosen compromise between retaining high-frequency dynamics and avoiding hallucinated data from low-rate sources; Section 2.2.3(c).
  • Consensus variance weighting lambda = 0.9
    Subjective weight favoring chemical-synapse variance over gap-junction variance in the consensus uncertainty; Section 2.3.4.
  • EWMA smoothing hyperparameter alpha = 1 (smoothing disabled)
    Set to 1 so no additional smoothing is applied in the released data; Section 2.2.3(d).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Linear interpolation produces valid traces when resampling between source frame rates.
    Used in Section 2.2.3(c); standard but can distort low-rate source data.
  • domain assumption Calcium fluorescence (delta-F/F0) is an acceptable proxy for neural activity across all 12 source protocols.
    Stated in the introduction and Discussion; if false, the pooled neural activity matrices are not comparable.
  • domain assumption Neuron labels from different laboratories refer to the same canonical cells, so alphabetical canonical ordering aligns columns across datasets.
    Section 2.2.3(f) uses canonical ordering and masks; no cross-lab label validation is provided.
  • domain assumption Unlabeled neurons can be treated as unmeasured (mask=0) without biasing downstream analyses.
    Section 2.2.3(f): the authors explicitly decline to distinguish unlabeled from unmeasured neurons.
  • domain assumption Averaging connectomes from different animals and studies yields a meaningful consensus connectome.
    Section 2.3.4 constructs the consensus by averaging; the Discussion acknowledges cross-animal variability.
  • domain assumption The CAN neuron pair can be dropped, giving 300 canonical neurons instead of 302.
    Section 2.2.2 and Discussion: CAN cells lack chemical synapses and are classified as end-organs [18,33].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Homogenized $\textit{C. elegans}$ Neural Activity and Connectivity Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MAMUN3MM

@misc{pith2026241112091,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Homogenized $\textitC. elegans$ Neural Activity and Connectivity Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MAMUN3MM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12091}
}
abstract

There is renewed interest in modeling and understanding the nervous system of the nematode $\textit{Caenorhabditis elegans}$ ($\textit{C. elegans}$), as this small model system provides a path to bridge the gap between nervous system structure (connectivity) and function (physiology). However, existing physiology datasets, whether involving passive recording or stimulation, are in distinct formats, and connectome datasets require preprocessing before analysis can commence. Here we compile and homogenize datasets of neural activity and connectivity. Our neural activity dataset is derived from 12 $\textit{C. elegans}$ neuroimaging experiments, while our connectivity dataset is compiled from 9 connectome annotations based on 3 primary electron microscopy studies and 1 signal propagation study. Physiology datasets, collected under varying protocols, measure calcium fluorescence in labeled subsets of the worm's 300 neurons. Our preprocessing pipeline standardizes these datasets by consistently ordering labeled neurons and resampling traces to a common sampling rate, yielding recordings from approximately 900 worms and 250 uniquely labeled neurons. The connectome datasets, collected from electron microscopy reconstructions, represent the entire nervous system as a graph of connections. Our collection is accessible on HuggingFace, facilitating analysis of the structure-function relationship in biology using modern neural network architectures and enabling cross-lab and cross-animal comparisons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12091 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of Neural Activity Datasets. (A) Distribution of the number of worms in each experimental dataset. (B) Number of recorded neurons per worm compared to the total neuronal population of C. elegans. (C) Total duration of recorded neural activity for each dataset. (D) Average recording duration per worm, with one hour of calcium imaging as a benchmark. (E) Number of resampled time steps per worm, and (F) Pre-re… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Processed Neural Activity Data Structure. Illustration of the structure of our neural activity data as a time-series matrix, where each column represents a neuron, ordered alphabetically by their canonical names in C. elegans. The calcium signals are resampled, (optionally) smoothed, and normalized to the same rate (1/∆t Hz). A binary mask is generated to indicate which neurons were labeled for each worm. c). Resamp… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Graph-Based Representation of the Connectome. Graph-based structure used for the C. elegans connectome data. Nodes represent neurons, with node attributes (e.g., position, class) and optional features. Directed edges capture connections, with edge attributes (e.g., chemical and gap junction weights). attributes, and constructs the final graph tensor Data objects. Each source dataset is handled by a customized subcla… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. NeuroAI for AI Safety

    cs.AI 2024-11 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    A roadmap arguing that neuroscience-inspired approaches can materially improve technical AI safety, with feasibility analyses of several concrete research directions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    Beets, S

    I. Beets, S. Zels, E. Vandewyer, J. Demeulemeester, J. Caers, E. Baytemur, A. Courtney, L. Golinelli, ˙I. Hasakio ˘gulları, W. R. Schafer, P. E. Vértes, O. Mirabeau, and L. Schoofs. System-wide mapping of peptide-gpcr interactions in c. elegans. Cell Reports, 42(9):113058,

    work page

  2. [3]

    Wiring optimization can relate neuronal structure and function

    Beth L Chen, David H Hall, and Dmitri B Chklovskii. Wiring optimization can relate neuronal structure and function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 103(12):4723–4728,

    work page

  3. [4]

    Whole-animal connectomes of both caenorhabditis elegans sexes

    Steven J Cook, Tyler A Jarrell, Christian A Brittin, Ying Wang, Adam E Bloniarz, Mikhail A Yakovlev, Kim CQ Nguyen, Lisa T-H Tang, Erik A Bayer, Janet S Duerr, et al. Whole-animal connectomes of both caenorhabditis elegans sexes. Nature, 571(7763):63–71, 2019. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1352-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1352-7 2019

  4. [5]

    M. S. Creamer, A. M. Leifer, and J. W. Pillow. Bridging the gap between the connectome and whole-brain activity in C. elegans. bioRxiv, page 2024.09.22.614271, 2024. doi: 10.1101/2024. 09.22.614271. URL https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.22.614271

    doi:10.1101/2024 2024

  5. [6]

    Brain-wide representations of behavior spanning multiple timescales and states in c

    Atanas et al. Brain-wide representations of behavior spanning multiple timescales and states in c. elegans. Cell, 186:4134–4151.e31, 2023. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2023.07.035

    doi:10.1016/j.cell.2023.07.035 2023

  6. [7]

    Ultrasensitive fluorescent proteins for imaging neuronal activity

    Chen et al. Ultrasensitive fluorescent proteins for imaging neuronal activity. Nature, 499(7458): 295–300, 2013. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12354

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12354 2013

  7. [8]

    Gap junctions in c

    Hall et al. Gap junctions in c. elegans: Their roles in behavior and development. Developmental Neurobiology, 77:587–596, 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/dneu.22408

    work page doi:10.1002/dneu.22408 2017

  8. [9]

    The time is ripe to reverse engineer an entire nervous system: simulating behavior from neural interactions

    Haspel et al. To reverse engineer an entire nervous system. arxiv, 2023. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2308.06578

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.06578 2023

Show all 41 references
  1. [10]

    Nested neuronal dynamics orchestrate a behavioral hierarchy across timescales

    Kaplan et al. Nested neuronal dynamics orchestrate a behavioral hierarchy across timescales. Neuron, 105:562–576.e9, 2020. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.10.037

    2020 doi

  2. [11]

    Global brain dynamics embed the motor command sequence of caenorhabditis elegans

    Kato et al. Global brain dynamics embed the motor command sequence of caenorhabditis elegans. Cell, 163:656–669, 2015. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.034

    2015 doi

  3. [12]

    Functional imaging and quantification of multineuronal olfactory responses in c

    Lin et al. Functional imaging and quantification of multineuronal olfactory responses in c. elegans. Sci Adv, 9, 2023. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ade1249

    2023 doi

  4. [13]

    A global brain state underlies c

    Nichols et al. A global brain state underlies c. elegans sleep behavior. Science, 365, 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam6851

    2017 doi

  5. [14]

    Dissecting the functional organization of the c

    Nichols et al. Dissecting the functional organization of the c. elegans serotonergic system at whole-brain scale. Cell, 186:2574–2592.e20, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2023.04. 023

    2023 doi

  6. [15]

    Neural signal propagation atlas of caenorhabditis elegans

    Randi et al. Neural signal propagation atlas of caenorhabditis elegans. Nature, 623:406–414,

  7. [16]

    Energy scarcity promotes a brain-wide sleep state modulated by insulin signaling in c

    Skora et al. Energy scarcity promotes a brain-wide sleep state modulated by insulin signaling in c. elegans. Cell Rep., 22:953–966, 2018. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2017.12.091

    2018 doi

  8. [17]

    Toward a more accurate 3d atlas of c

    Skuhersky et al. Toward a more accurate 3d atlas of c. elegans neurons. BMC Bioinformatics, 23, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-022-04738-3

    2022 doi

  9. [18]

    doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06683-4

    doi

  10. [19]

    A set of hub neurons and non-local connectivity features support global brain dynamics in c

    Uzel et al. A set of hub neurons and non-local connectivity features support global brain dynamics in c. elegans. Curr . Biol., 32:3443–3459.e8, 2022. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. cub.2022.06.039

    2022 doi

  11. [20]

    Structural properties of the caenorhabditis elegans neuronal network.PLoS Com- putational Biology, 7(2):e1001066, 2011

    Varshney et al. Structural properties of the caenorhabditis elegans neuronal network.PLoS Com- putational Biology, 7(2):e1001066, 2011. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001066

    2011 doi

  12. [21]

    Regulatory logic of pan-neuronal gene expression in c

    Stefanakis et al. Regulatory logic of pan-neuronal gene expression in c. elegans. Neuron, 87: 733–750, 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.07.031. 12

    2015 doi

  13. [22]

    Matthias Fey and Jan E. Lenssen. Fast graph representation learning with pytorch geometric. arXiv [cs.LG], 2019. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.02428

    2019 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Gleeson, M

    P. Gleeson, M. Cantarelli, M. Currie, J. Hokanson, G. Idili, S. Khayrulin, A. Palyanov, B. Szigeti, and S. Larson. The openworm project: currently available resources and future plans. BMC Neuroscience, 16(1):1–2, 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-16-S1-P141

    2015 doi

  15. [24]

    Imaging the voltage of neurons distributed across entire brains of larval zebrafish

    Wang et al. Imaging the voltage of neurons distributed across entire brains of larval zebrafish. bioRxiv.Org: The Preprint Server for Biology , 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.15. 571964

    2023 doi

  16. [25]

    Imaging calcium in neurons

    Christine Grienberger and Arthur Konnerth. Imaging calcium in neurons. Neuron, 73(5): 862–885, 2012. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.011

    2012 doi

  17. [26]

    Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces

    Albert Gu, Karan Goel, and Christopher Ré. Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces. arXiv [cs.LG], 2021. URL https://github.com/HazyResearch/ state-spaces

    2021

  18. [27]

    Goodman, David H

    Miriam B. Goodman, David H. Hall, Leon Avery, and Shawn R. Lockery. Active currents regulate sensitivity and dynamic range in C. elegans neurons. Neuron, 20(4):763–772, 1998. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(00)81014-4. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(00) 81014-4

    1998 doi

  19. [28]

    Revisiting neuronal cell type classification in Caenorhabditis elegans

    Oliver Hobert, Lisa Glenwinkel, and John White. Revisiting neuronal cell type classification in Caenorhabditis elegans. Current Biology: CB , 26(22):R1197–R1203, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.cub. 2016.10.027

    2016 doi

  20. [29]

    Amir Nejatbakhsh, Erdem Varol, Eviatar Yemini, Vivek Venkatachalam, Aaron Lin, Aravinthan D. T. Samuel, and Liam Paninski. Extracting neural signals from semi-immobilized animals with deformable non-negative matrix factorization. bioRxiv, page 2020.07.07.192120, 2020. doi: 10....

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    Closed-form continuous-time neural net- works

    Ramin Hasani, Mathias Lechner, Alexander Amini, Lucas Liebenwein, Ashish Ray, Matthias Tschaikowski, Gerald Teschl, and Daniela Rus. Closed-form continuous-time neural net- works. Nature Machine Intelligence , 4(11):992–1003, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ s42256-022-00556-7

    2022

  22. [31]

    Lethargus is a caenorhabditis elegans sleep- like state

    David M Raizen, Jonathan E Zimmerman, Melissa H Maycock, Ulrike D Ta, Young-Jai You, Meera V Sundaram, and Allan I Pack. Lethargus is a caenorhabditis elegans sleep- like state. Nature, 451(7178):569–572, 2008. doi: 10.1038/nature06535. URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/nature06535

    2008 doi

  23. [32]

    Richter and E

    O. Richter and E. Schneidman. Building a small brain with a simple stochastic generative model. bioRxiv, page 2024.07.01.601562, 2024. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.01.601562. URL https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.01.601562

    2024 doi

  24. [33]

    Pandey.The unc-53-mediated interactome: Analysis of its role in the generation of the C

    Ankush Pandey and Girdhar K. Pandey.The unc-53-mediated interactome: Analysis of its role in the generation of the C. elegans connectome. Not Avail, 2014. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07827-4. PDF available online

    2014 doi

  25. [34]

    Brain-wide neural activity data in c

    Maedeh Seyedolmohadesin. Brain-wide neural activity data in c. elegans, 2024. URL https: //chemosensory-data.worm.world/. [Accessed: September 11, 2024]

    2024

  26. [35]

    L. et al. Tian. Imaging neural activity in worms, flies and mice with improved gcamp calcium indicators. Nat. Methods, 6:875–881, 2009. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1398

    2009 doi

  27. [36]

    Taylor, Alex Weinreb, Betsy L

    Laura Ripoll-Sánchez, Julien Watteyne, Hongtao Sun, Ramon Fernandez, Steven R. Taylor, Alex Weinreb, Betsy L. Bentley, Marc Hammarlund, David M. III Miller, Oliver Hobert, Isabel Beets, Petra E. Vértes, and William R. Schafer. The neuropeptidergic connectome of C. elegans. Neu...

    2023 doi

  28. [37]

    The structure of the nervous system of the nematode c

    John G White, Edward Southgate, JN Thomson, and Sydney Brenner. The structure of the nervous system of the nematode c. elegans: the mind of a worm. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences , 314(1165):1–340, 1986

    1986

  29. [38]

    Con- nectomes across development reveal principles of brain maturation in c

    Daniel Witvliet, Brennon Mulcahy, Jonathan K Mitchell, Yariv Meirovitch, Daniel R Berger, Yen-Chu Wu, Ya-Ting Liu, Wilson XT Koh, Rakesh Parvathala, Doug Holmyard, et al. Con- nectomes across development reveal principles of brain maturation in c. elegans. Nature, 596 (7871):2...

    2021

  30. [39]

    Everything is connected: Graph neural networks

    Petar Veliˇckovi´c. Everything is connected: Graph neural networks. arXiv [cs.LG], 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.08210

    2023 arXiv

  31. [42]

    Neuropal: A multicolor atlas for whole-brain neuronal identification in c

    Eviatar Yemini, Aaron Lin, Amir Nejatbakhsh, Erdem Varol, Ruijie Sun, Gabriel E Mena, Aravinthan DT Samuel, Vivek Venkatachalam, Liam Paninski, and Oliver Hobert. Neuropal: A multicolor atlas for whole-brain neuronal identification in c. elegans. Cell, 184(1):272–288, 2021. 14...

    2021

  32. [2006]

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506806103

    doi

  33. [2023]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113058

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.