| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York; 2Monell Chemical Senses Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and 3Janelia Farm Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, Virginia
Submitted 18 May 2007; accepted in final form 31 August 2007
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
0.04; 2) the number of simultaneously perceived odors can be as high as 12; and 3) extensive lesions of the olfactory bulb do not lead to significant changes in detection or discrimination thresholds. We conclude that a combinatorial code based on a binary glomerular response is sufficient to account for several important features of the discrimination capacity of the mammalian olfactory system. |
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
; Buck 2005; Grosmaitre et al. 2006; Mombaerts 2004) and imaging of neuronal activity (Friedrich and Korsching 1997; Guthrie et al. 1993; Johnson et al. 1998; Meister and Bonhoeffer 2001; Rubin and Katz 1999; Uchida et al. 2000; Verhagen et al. 2007; Wachowiak and Cohen 2001; Xu et al. 2000) provide evidence for the spatial representation of olfactory information in the olfactory bulb (OB) (Adrian 1953; Kauer 1991; Shepherd 1994). Whether the information about odorants is relayed to higher brain areas in its spatial form or is translated by OB neurons into a more efficient representation, perhaps involving temporal correlations, is unclear. A definitive resolution of this question will allow investigators to directly probe neural representations of olfactory stimuli and ultimately build a testable model for the olfactory code.
Information about odorants in mammals is initially represented in the activity of olfactory receptor neurons (ORNs). Each ORN expresses one and only one type of olfactory receptor (OR) protein (Malnic et al. 1999; Rawson et al. 2000) whose binding specificity makes possible the recognition of a set of odorant molecules. ORNs can therefore be divided into classes expressing genetically distinct OR types. The number of such types ranges from hundreds in humans to thousands in other vertebrates (Glusman et al. 2001; Man et al. 2004). All ORNs expressing the same gene for a particular OR protein project to one of two glomeruli, representing a convergence of many thousands of ORNs with identical ligand specificity onto the cohort of mitral/tufted cells within each glomerulus. The glomeruli in the olfactory bulb of mammals represent modules within which the first critical stage of olfactory information processing occurs. Glomerular processing is modified by several classes of local interneurons (Wachowiak and Shipley 2006) that can mediate center–surround inhibition to selectively enhance strong inputs and suppress weak inputs. The synaptic processing within the glomerulus of input signals from ORNs determines the rate and timing of action potentials by mitral/tufted cells, which carry the processed sensory signal to a variety of higher centers.
According to the spatial theory of odor coding olfactory information is represented in the spatial response patterns of glomeruli and their associated mitral/tufted neurons. Just as images on the retina evoke specific patterns of activation of retinal ganglion cells, different odorants are encoded in the spatial pattern of activity of mitral/tufted cells. Although the spatial code is simple it represents a powerful scheme, capable of encoding both intensity and quality of different odors, especially if different glomeruli are activated simultaneously in various combinations, leading to the notion of the combinatorial code (Firestein 2004; Khafizov et al. 2007; Mori et al. 2006).
As an alternative to the purely spatial coding hypothesis, a temporal theory of odor coding proposed that olfactory information is represented in the temporal pattern of neuronal spiking and/or in spiking synchronized to collective neuronal oscillations. Some implementations rely on the use of synchronization of spike timing with respect to the phase of oscillations (Brody and Hopfield 2003; Friedrich et al. 2004). Although evidence exists for the presence of correlations between mitral/tufted cell activity and local field potential oscillations (Bathellier et al. 2006; Galan et al. 2006; Hayar et al. 2005; Schoppa 2006), it is not clear whether this is how olfactory information is primarily transferred. The main argument in favor of the temporal coding theory is that coding in the temporal domain strongly increases the information capacity of the code. However, the information capacity of various types of olfactory codes has not been thoroughly investigated (Wilson and Mainen 2006).
In this study we investigate the discrimination capacity of the combinatorial spatial code. The main assumption we make is that the elementary unit of the olfactory code is the glomerulus. The mitral/tufted cells receiving excitatory inputs within the same glomerulus are assumed to send information into the olfactory cortex about how strongly a given glomerulus is activated. Alternatively, it could be possible that each mitral/tufted cell acts as an independent coder, making discrimination of odorant identity possible even within a single glomerulus. This hypothesis will not be pursued here.
Some evidence indicates that processing of sensory inputs within glomeruli can operate in an all-or-none fashion, particularly in the peri-threshold range of odorant concentrations (Chen and Shepherd 2005; Shepherd 2004). Leveteau and MacLeod (1966) recorded odor-elicited large-amplitude field potentials from the glomerular layer of the rabbit olfactory bulb. Application of repeated odorant stimuli produced field potential responses with an all-or-nothing character. Another line of evidence for all-or-nothing glomerular responses comes from studies of activity-dependent labeling of odorant-activated glomeruli with 2-deoxyglucose (Sharp et al. 1975; Stewart et al. 1979). At very low odor concentrations a small number of glomeruli responded but their labeling was found to be very dense. This is consistent with the hypothesis that glomerular activation can occur in an all-or-nothing manner, particularly in the range of odorant concentrations at or just above threshold. Therefore we will assume initially that glomeruli have binary responses and as such can be either active (ON) or inactive (OFF). This assumption is made to simplify the presentation of our results. Later we relax this assumption by allowing graded activation of a single glomerulus.
The assumption of binary glomerular activation puts a strong restriction on the olfactory code. Perhaps the only remaining feature of the code is its combinatorial complexity. Having made these assumptions we address several results of human and rodent olfactory psychophysics. We ask whether the odorant discrimination capacity observed in these experiments can be explained only based on the combinatorial olfactory code. A positive answer to this question will make a strong case for the parsimony of a spatial code. We will address experiments on the human Weber ratio (just noticeable relative differences in concentration) (Cain 1977), the robustness of olfactory discrimination to lesions observed in rodents (Bisulco and Slotnick 2003; Slotnick and Bisulco 2003), and the number of monomolecular odors that can be detected simultaneously (Jinks and Laing 1999). We select this particular set of experiments because they encompass olfactory tasks particularly relevant to the animal's behavior, such as detection of odors, detection of odor gradients, and recognition of odor components in mixtures. Also modeling of the outcomes of these experiments can be accomplished through statistical description of glomerular responses to individual odorants. The psychophysical sensitivities measured in these olfactory discrimination tasks are therefore related by our model to the parameters of statistical distributions of glomerular thresholds that could be assayed electrophysiologically, thus making our model falsifiable. Although we propose a combinatorial coding scheme as a parsimonious description of the system, we do not exclude the role of temporal coding. Therefore we build the case only for sufficiency of the combinatorial code.
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
; Man et al. 2004; Menashe et al. 2006). For mice and rats the number of independent glomeruli is about N = 1,000 (Man et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2004). The glomerular responses in our approach are defined by the set of binary numbers ri, where the index i runs from 1 to N. The numbers indicate whether a given glomerulus is activated (ri = 1) or not activated (ri = 0) by the odor. Note that we assume that a glomerulus carries one bit of information, but do not specify how information is transferred to other parts of the brain. Information transfer may be realized by modulation of the firing rate, changes in synchrony between mitral cells of the same glomerulus, or other means.
Different odors activate different subsets of glomeruli (Fig. 1A), thus resulting in combinatorial encoding of stimulus quality. For increasing concentration of the same odorant, we assume that glomeruli are sequentially recruited, i.e., the number of glomeruli that are active increases with increasing intensity of the stimulus. We therefore assume that no glomerulus can be deactivated by an increased concentration of the same odor (Fig. 1B).
|
i(O) are defined as the concentrations of the odorant O at which glomerulus number i is activated. For each monomolecular odorant there is a set of N such thresholds, which completely define the response of our model olfactory system to that particular odorant. Indeed, for each value of concentration C the glomeruli satisfying i(O) 
C are activated (ON), whereas those with i(O) > C are not active (OFF). A possible set of odorant thresholds is shown in Fig. 2. Following Hopfield (1999) we will assume that the thresholds are distributed uniformly on the logarithmic scale of concentration.
|
). The similarity in receptor neuron activation is consistent with the main postulate of our model according to which the elementary unit of olfactory response is the glomerulus. Therefore the differences in the responses of ORNs projecting to the same glomerulus could not be transmitted further or interpreted by the nervous system. It is assumed therefore that glomerular activation threshold is equal to the activation threshold for the ORNs projecting to this glomerulus. Because glomerular responses are identified in our model with the ORN responses one could use the range of activation of ORNs to determine parameter A. The data available for the rat show that about 36% of ORNs are recruited when the concentration varies within about 2.75 orders of magnitude (decimal logarithm units) (Duchamp-Viret et al. 2000). This number is obtained after averaging over several odorants. This recruitment rate corresponds to the full activation of 100% of cells within about 7.6 orders of magnitude of concentration. In natural logarithm units this range translates into the width of distribution of glomerular thresholds of about Arat = 7.6 ln 10 = 17.6. Interestingly, a similar estimate for the frog based on data in Duchamp-Viret et al. (2000) yields Afrog = 14.2. Thus this parameter has a potential to vary weakly between species. The results below are only slightly affected when the parameter varies between the frog and the rat values. Therefore in this study we will adopt a median value between the rat and the frog A = 16 that corresponds to about 7 orders of magnitude in decimal logarithm units. It is interesting that a similar value of 6 orders of magnitude of concentration is observed for the width of distribution of human psychophysical thresholds for detection of different odors (Devos and Laffort 1990; Walker et al. 2003). It appears that various behaviorally relevant variability ranges are in close agreement with each other.
Our model thus has two essential numerical parameters: the number of independent glomeruli N, which is variable from species to species, and the dynamic range of the olfactory system A 
16. Using these two parameters we address below several psychophysical experiments.
Just noticeable changes in concentration
We will first deduce the Weber ratio [the just noticeable difference (JND) in relative concentration]. For a given concentration C the fraction of glomeruli whose thresholds are below C is (ln C – ln CMin)/A, as illustrated in Fig. 2. Here CMin is the minimum glomerular threshold for a given odorant introduced in Fig. 2. The total number of recruited glomeruli (in the ON state) is therefore
 | (1) |
n = 1 leads in combination with Eq. 1 to the following expression for the Weber ratio
 | (2) |
In other words the Weber ratio is equal to the average distance between neighboring thresholds on the logarithmic scale of concentrations. The estimate for the value of the Weber ratio for humans can be obtained by taking N = 350 and A 16, which results in C/C 4.6%. This result compares favorably with experimental findings of Cain (1977), who measured C/C to be in the range between 4 and 16%. In particular, when an odorant was delivered using an air-dilution olfactometer, the Weber ratio could reach 4.2% (see Fig. 3 in Cain 1977).
|
n 
1. In this case an analog of Eq. 2 can be derived
 | (3) |
n = 2) the Weber ratio is twice as large as in the purely ON–OFF case (n = 1). Effects of bulbar lesions
We will next examine the effects of lesions of the olfactory bulb on the detection of odors. Experimental studies suggest that extensive bulbar lesions lead to no significant effect on detection and discrimination of odorants (Bisulco and Slotnick 2003; Slotnick and Bisulco 2003). Here we suggest that this conclusion follows naturally from the ON–OFF model. The model therefore reproduces the observed robustness of olfactory discrimination after lesions of the olfactory bulb.
Consider the detection task first. The presence of the odorant is detected in our model if at least one glomerulus is activated. The minimal perceived concentration is therefore determined by the minimum value in the set of N thresholds n(O) for different glomeruli (Figs. 2 and 3). If the lesion removes a fraction f of all glomeruli, chosen randomly, the minimum threshold shifts to the next lowest available threshold, which is spared by the lesion. The average shift in the detection threshold is given by
 | (4) |
C/C = 0.016 in this model (N = 1,000). The shift in the detection threshold given by Eq. 4 is indeed insignificant, which renders the olfactory system robust to lesions. The robustness stems from the broad tuning of different glomeruli: If some of them are removed, others can still detect an odorant. The ability to detect a given odorant implies that two different odorants can be discriminated in this model. Indeed, if each odorant is presented at the perceptual threshold, it will activate a single glomerulus. By detecting which glomerulus is active an ideal observer could infer what odorant is present. If more than one glomerulus is activated by each odorant, discrimination becomes more reliable. Thus from the standpoint of the ideal observer used in this model, both detection and discrimination are equivalent and robust to lesions.
Number of components in the mixture that can be detected
We will now address the number of monomolecular odorants that can be identified simultaneously in our model. The basic problem with identifying monomolecular odorants in the odor mixture is illustrated in Fig. 4. Assume that the subject is presented with a mixture of two odorants: O1 and O2. This mixture is identified as M1 in Fig. 4. A possible response of the glomeruli to the mixture includes a maximum of the glomerular activation evoked by either O1 or O2 when presented separately. This form of additivity between components of odor mixtures is observed in 60–70% of ORNs and is called hypoadditivity (Duchamp-Viret et al. 2003), a term derived from prior psychophysical studies of odor intensity in single compounds and odor mixtures (Cometto-Muniz et al. 1999; Laska and Hudson 1993). In the case of hypoadditivity the response of a glomerulus to the mixture of odorants is equal to the maximum of the responses of this glomerulus to components of the mixture measured individually, i.e., when no other components of the mixture are present.
|
), representing, e.g., the activation of individual glomeruli to individual mixture components. Throughout the remainder of the paper we will use hypoadditivity to describe responses to mixtures. The impact of other forms of additivity, such as synergy and suppression, which are observed in fewer ORNs (Duchamp-Viret et al. 2003), is discussed in the supplementary materials.1 When the subject is presented with another mixture M2, in which O2 is replaced by O3, the pattern of activation may be exactly the same as in the response to M1 (Fig. 4). In this event the presence of O2 cannot be distinguished reliably from O3 in the mixture. The quantitative question that arises in this case is at what number of monomolecular odorants in the mixture such ambiguity may arise.
To identify the number of monomolecular odorants at which the ON–OFF model fails to differentiate the presence of one of them in a mixture we notice the following condition in Fig. 4. If one adds O2 to mixture M2, the glomerular response is unchanged. This implies that no glomeruli are recruited by adding an extra odor to the mixture. The failure of the observer to identify an extra odor occurs when g < 1, where g is the average number of glomeruli recruited by the new odor.
Consider a mixture of S odorants. Our goal is to determine the number g(S) of glomeruli activated by this mixture on average. We will then use the criterion g 
g(S + 1) – g(S) < 1 to determine at what number of odorants S the olfactory system fails to detect the presence of individual components, as discussed in the previous paragraph. To accomplish this goal we will relate g(S) to the number of glomeruli g(S + 1) active when another component, called O, is added to the mixture. Assume that the component O, when present alone, activates n glomeruli. In the presence of other odorants the number of newly recruited by component O glomeruli is expected to be smaller than n. Indeed, other components of the mixture activate a fraction x = g(S)/N < 1 of all glomeruli, and xn of the glomeruli recruited by the component O. The latter glomeruli are already activated by the mixture and cannot be recruited by O. Therefore one expects that the number of glomeruli newly recruited by O is n – xn rather than n. The equation that determines the rate of recruitment when new components are sequentially added to the mixture is
 | (5) |
 | (6) |
 | (7) |
As we mentioned, the olfactory system described here fails to detect a substitution of one of the odors if g g(S + 1) – g(S) < 1. Using Eq. 6 we obtain from this condition the maximum number of odorants in the mixture which can be detected
 | (8) |
|
 | (9) |
16, which corresponds to about 7 orders of magnitude of concentration.
Experimentally the maximal number of monomolecular odorants in a mixture at which the presence or absence of a single component can be detected is between 12 and 16 (Jinks and Laing 1999). In these experiments mixtures of 16 monomolecular odorants were presented to human subjects. The concentrations of the individual components were chosen so that their perceived intensities were similar, leading to the conclusion that the number of activated glomeruli was approximately the same in the framework of our model. A single most familiar component of the odor mixture was replaced with a different randomly chosen odor and the human subject was asked to press a "yes" or "no" button on the computer screen indicating whether the selected component is present. The performance of the subjects fell to a chance level between 12 and 16 components in the mixture. From the perspective of the ON–OFF model this number is consistent with the concentration of individual components of about 102 times the threshold for detection (Fig. 5). Our model predicts that with increasing concentration of individual odorants, the number of detectable components should decrease. The overall order of magnitude of the number of odorants detectable in a mixture is determined by the natural logarithm of the range of concentrations distinguished by the olfactory system, which is given by the parameter A 16 (see Eq. 9).
What happens if a change in activation of n > 1 glomeruli is needed to detect a substitution of a monomolecular odor component in the mixture (compare with Eq. 3)? The number of components in the mixture at which a psychophysical detection threshold is reached in this case is given by an expression similar, but more general than Eq. 8
 | (10) |
n. This dependence is weaker than that of the Weber fraction (Eq. 3), which was directly proportional to n. We conclude that the maximum number of components at which replacement of a single component in the mixture can be detected is weakly dependent on the number of glomeruli that are needed to cause a psychophysical response and is mostly determined by parameter A 16, especially in the intermediate range of concentrations. Graded glomerular response
Here we will find the conditions under which glomerular responses can be considered binary. To account for the graded nature of the response of glomerulus number i as a function of concentration ri(C) we assume that it is described by the Hill equation
 | (11) |
The second equality in Eq. 11 emphasizes that as a function of the logarithm of concentration the Hill equation actually takes the form of a logistic function. The steepness of the logistic function is determined by the Hill exponent: The response increases from 0 to 1 within the range of the logarithm of concentration proportional to 1/H. As the Hill exponent increases the glomerular response becomes sharper, until, in the limit H 
, it becomes infinitely sharp, as in the ON–OFF model considered earlier. At what value of the Hill exponent can one consider the conclusions of the ON–OFF model to be valid?
To make a connection to the ON–OFF model we construct the integrated population response, which represents the number of active glomeruli in the case of graded responses (Firestein et al. 1993; Meister and Bonhoeffer 2001; Wachowiak and Cohen 2001)
 | (12) |
), it renders the number of active glomeruli similar to Eq. 1. If one considers the case of H 
1 one notices that the total population activity given by Eq. 12 does not differ much from the pure ON–OFF case (H ). This is because the contribution from suprathreshold glomeruli is lowered (Fig. 6), whereas the subthreshold glomeruli contribute more, leading to compensation and no substantial change in the integral population activity due to the finite Hill coefficient. This cancellation is possible if the range of thresholds for glomerular activation A is substantially larger than the range of graded response for a single glomerulus 1/H
 | (13) |
16) and the Hill coefficients ranging between about 0.5 and 4.4 (Firestein et al. 1993; Wachowiak and Cohen 2001) one expects the condition Eq. 13 to be met and the ON–OFF model to accurately represent the population activity even if the glomerular responses are graded.
|
). We also assumed that substitution of a component can be detected if the total variation of the glomerular response vector is equal to one, similar to the pure ON–OFF case. Of course, the variation in the total response vector in the continuous case can be below or above one and becomes an additional parameter of the model. We have chosen this variation to be one to make a comparison to the pure ON–OFF case. The critical number of components discriminated in a mixture obtained under these conditions is shown in Fig. 5 by the dashed (H = 3) and dotted (H = 1) lines. The main effect of graded glomerular responses is in smearing the ON–OFF dependence by approximately 1/H. For moderate concentrations of components the analytical result (Eq. 8) gives an adequate approximation to the results obtained in the case of graded glomerular responses. We conclude that the ON–OFF model may give a good approximation for the number of components in the mixture that can be detected even if the actual responses of glomeruli are graded. Also, except for the small range of the values of components' concentration around threshold for detection, the ON–OFF model underestimated the number of components that can be detected (Fig. 5). This is because additional information about the mixture composition was provided by the graded responses of glomeruli. Experimental predictions
The first prediction of our model pertains to the experiments with bulbar lesions. Although we argued that shifts in the detection threshold due to lesions are small (Eq. 4) our model predicts that the Weber fraction may be substantially increased. Indeed the Weber fraction according to Eq. 2 is inversely proportional to the number of available glomeruli. A 50% random lesion will therefore lead to an increase in the Weber fraction by a factor of 2. Similarly, a 90% indiscriminate lesion will result in a tenfold increase in the just noticeable differences in concentration. We suggest that these effects could be observed in psychophysical measurements in surgically manipulated rats.
In the experiments with odor mixtures our model predicts that with increasing concentration of individual monomolecular components, the number of detectable odorants should decrease. This prediction is evident from Fig. 5.
When the method of information transmission by the mitral cells is established, the values of the parameters of our model could be confirmed electrophysiologically. Thus the distribution of glomerular thresholds could be assessed from experimental measurements of the activation thresholds for individual mitral cells. To this end the responses of mitral cells as functions of odorant concentration could be fitted with the Hill equation (Eq. 11). In the previous section we suggested that in the case of graded glomerular response the role of activation thresholds is played by the saturation concentration K. The distribution of concentration thresholds for different mitral cells could be used to verify the linear recruitment of mitral cells with the logarithm of concentration. The width of the distribution interval A could be confirmed to have the value of about 16 accepted in this study. Such electrophysiological observations could be used to confirm the assumptions about the statistical features of the olfactory code that are used in our model.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
). We thus suggest that a spatial combinatorial code is sufficient to explain the discrimination capacity of human/rodent olfaction.
There are olfactory psychophysics results different from the three phenomena we choose to relate to our model (Cain 1988; Doty and Laing 2003). Human odor detection thresholds vary over several orders of magnitude (Cain 1988; Devos and Laffort 1990; Walker et al. 2003) and are significantly lower than the odor identification threshold (Hummel et al. 2006; Keller and Vosshall 2004). Interactions among components of binary odorant mixtures are frequently nonlinear. The mixture may smell more intense that the stronger component sampled alone, may smell intermediate in intensity between the two components sampled alone, or may smell less intense than the weaker component sampled alone (Cain et al. 1995; Lawless 1997; reviewed in Wise et al. 2007). In addition, there are important effects of the temporal parameters of odor sampling relative to the respiratory or sniffing cycle (Johnson et al. 2006; Mainland and Sobel 2006; Verhagen et al. 2007). Finally, humans cannot reliably identify the odors of components of mixtures containing more than three compounds (Goyert et al. 2007; Jinks and Laing 2001).
We selected three phenomena among the array of results in olfactory psychophysics because our theory is statistical in nature and relates most directly to data sets where large numbers of odors and subjects have been tested and quantitative data reported. Studies using small sets of odorants and subjects may contain perceptual results—unique to the set of odors or panel of subjects tested—that are not represented in our theory in its present form. In further work we will attempt to extend our theory to a larger set of psychophysical results.
In estimating the range of glomerular threshold distribution A we have made several assumptions. First, we extrapolated glomerular recruitment rate from lower to higher concentrations. If, for example, the recruitment rate were significantly lower for higher odorant concentrations than our estimate one would expect a larger, A = 16 value of the distribution width. Relaxing this assumption, however, will not appreciably affect our results because they rely on the recruitment rate at the lower odorant concentrations, for which the experimental evidence in Duchamp-Viret et al. (2000) is available. Another assumption pertains to a lack of sampling biases in assaying the ORN responses. We assumed in particular that the ORNs recorded in Duchamp-Viret et al. (2000) represented many different glomeruli taken randomly. This assumption was based on the broad spatial distribution in the nasal cavity of ORNs projecting to the same glomerulus. Alternatively, the sampling of ORNs in Duchamp-Viret et al. (2000) could reflect a bias toward certain groups of glomeruli. In this case two dramatically different options are available. First, it is possible that the particular group of glomeruli for which recordings of ORNs have bias is not particularly different from other glomeruli in terms of their affinity to the tested odorant. In this case it is possible to accept the estimate of A = 16 obtained for this particular group as representative for the entire population. In the other extreme, the sampled group of glomeruli belongs to the population with a particular range of affinities to the given odorant. If this range is not overlapping with other glomerular groups, our estimate for the width of distribution is expected to be lower than the actual value.
Duchamp-Viret et al. (2000) reported that odorants delivered at the saturated vapor pressure activate only about 50% of ORNs in the rat. This feature can be incorporated in our model if about 50% of glomerular thresholds in Fig. 2 are above the saturated vapor concentration. Because parameter A = 16 is used in this study to calculate the rate of recruitment of glomeruli by odorants, our model does not require that the entire dynamic range is actually exploited by the olfactory system. On the contrary, that only a fraction of glomeruli are active makes a combinatorial encoding of odorants possible even at the saturated vapor pressure. This allows different odorants to smell differently when they are delivered at the maximal concentration (Gross-Isseroff and Lancet 1988). When 50% of glomeruli are active, the binary glomerular code allows representation of the maximal number of combinations and thus encoding the maximal number of odorants.
Additional features can be added to our model for a spatial code, such as more complex interactions between mixture components. In this case the olfactory code is expected to become more powerful and the discrimination capacity should increase. Our estimates therefore provide lower bounds for the discrimination capacity of the spatial code. Because these lower bounds appear to be in good agreement with experiments, the spatial code provides a both simple and powerful scheme for representing olfactory information.
|
|
GRANTS |
|---|
|
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 The online version of this article contains supplemental data. 
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: A. Koulakov, 1 Bungtown Rd., Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724 (E-mail: akula{at}cshl.edu)
|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
Axel R. Scents and sensibility: a molecular logic of olfactory perception (Nobel Lecture). Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 44: 6110–6127, 2005.[CrossRef]
Bathellier B, Lagier S, Faure P, Lledo PM. Circuit properties generating gamma oscillations in a network model of the olfactory bulb. J Neurophysiol 95: 2678–2691, 2006.
Bisulco S, Slotnick B. Olfactory discrimination of short chain fatty acids in rats with large bilateral lesions of the olfactory bulbs. Chem Senses 28: 361–370, 2003.
Brody CD, Hopfield JJ. Simple networks for spike-timing-based computation, with application to olfactory processing. Neuron 37: 843–852, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Buck LB. Unraveling the sense of smell (Nobel Lecture). Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 44: 6128–6140, 2005.[CrossRef]
Cain WS. Differential sensitivity for smell: "noise" at the nose. Science 195: 796–798, 1977.
Cain WS. Olfaction. In: Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology: Perception and Motivation (2nd ed.), edited by Atkinson RC, Herrnstein RJ, Lindzey G, Luce RD. New York: Wiley, 1988, vol. 1, p. 409–459.
Cain WS., Schiet FT, Olsson MJ, de Wijk RA. Comparison of models of odor interaction. Chem Senses 20: 625–637, 1995.
Chen WR, Shepherd GM. The olfactory glomerulus: a cortical module with specific functions. J Neurocytol 34: 353–360, 2005.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Cometto-Muniz JE, Cain WS, Abraham MH, Gola JM. Chemosensory detectability of 1-butanol and 2-heptanone singly and in binary mixtures. Physiol Behav 67: 269–276, 1999.[CrossRef][Medline]
Devos M, Laffort P. Standardized Human Olfactory Thresholds. New York: IRL Press/Oxford Univ. Press, 1990.
Doty RL, Laing DG. Psychophysical measurement of human olfactory function, including odorant mixture assessment. In: Handbook of Olfaction and Gustation, edited by Doty RL. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2003.
Duchamp-Viret P, Duchamp A, Chaput MA. Peripheral odor coding in the rat and frog: quality and intensity specification. J Neurosci 20: 2383–2390, 2000.
Duchamp-Viret P, Duchamp A, Chaput MA. Single olfactory sensory neurons simultaneously integrate the components of an odour mixture. Eur J Neurosci 18: 2690–2696, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Firestein S. A code in the nose. Sci STKE 227: pe15, 2004.
Firestein S, Picco C, Menini A. The relation between stimulus and response in olfactory receptor cells of the tiger salamander. J Physiol 468: 1–10, 1993.
Friedrich RW, Habermann CJ, Laurent G. Multiplexing using synchrony in the zebrafish olfactory bulb. Nat Neurosci 7: 862–871, 2004.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Friedrich RW, Korsching SI. Combinatorial and chemotopic odorant coding in the zebrafish olfactory bulb visualized by optical imaging. Neuron 18: 737–752, 1997.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Galan RF, Fourcaud-Trocme N, Ermentrout GB, Urban NN. Correlation-induced synchronization of oscillations in olfactory bulb neurons. J Neurosci 26: 3646–3655, 2006.
Glusman G, Yanai I, Rubin I, Lancet D. The complete human olfactory subgenome. Genome Res 11: 685–702, 2001.
Goyert HF, Frank ME, Gent JF, Hettinger TP. Characteristic component odors emerge from mixtures after selective adaptation. Brain Res Bull 72: 1–9, 2007.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Grosmaitre X, Vassalli A, Mombaerts P, Shepherd GM, Ma M. Odorant responses of olfactory sensory neurons expressing the odorant receptor MOR23: a patch clamp analysis in gene-targeted mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 1970–1975, 2006.
Gross-Isseroff R, Lancet D. Concentration-dependent changes of perceived odor quality. Chem Senses 13: 191–204, 1988.
Guthrie KM, Anderson AJ, Leon M, Gall C. Odor-induced increases in c-fos mRNA expression reveal an anatomical "unit" for odor processing in olfactory bulb. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90: 3329–3333, 1993.
Hayar A, Shipley MT, Ennis M. Olfactory bulb external tufted cells are synchronized by multiple intraglomerular mechanisms. J Neurosci 25: 8197–8208, 2005.
Hopfield JJ. Odor space and olfactory processing: collective algorithms and neural implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 12506–12511, 1999.
Hummel T, Mojet J, Kobal G. Electro-olfactograms are present when odorous stimuli have not been perceived. Neurosci Lett 397: 224–228, 2006.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Jinks A, Laing DG. A limit in the processing of components in odour mixtures. Perception 28: 395–404, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Jinks A, Laing DG. The analysis of odor mixtures by humans: evidence for a configurational process. Physiol Behav 72: 51–63, 2001.[CrossRef][Medline]
Johnson BA, Woo CC, Leon M. Spatial coding of odorant features in the glomerular layer of the rat olfactory bulb. J Comp Neurol 393: 457–471, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Johnson BN, Russell C, Khan RM, Sobel N. A comparison of methods for sniff measurement concurrent with olfactory tasks in humans. Chem Senses 31: 795–806, 2006.
Kauer JS. Contributions of topography and parallel processing to odor coding in the vertebrate olfactory pathway. Trends Neurosci 14: 79–85, 1991.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Keller A, Vosshall LB. Human olfactory psychophysics. Curr Biol 14: R875–R878, 2004.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Khafizov K, Anselmi C, Menini A, Carloni P. Ligand specificity of odorant receptors. J Mol Model 13: 401–409, 2007.[CrossRef][Medline]
Laska M, Hudson R. Discriminating parts from the whole: determinants of odor mixture perception in squirrel monkeys, Saimiri sciureus. J Comp Physiol A Sens Neural Behav Physiol 173: 249–256, 1993.[Medline]
Lawless HT. Olfactory psychophysics. In: Tasting and Smelling, edited by Beauchamp G, Bartoshuk L. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1997, p. 125–168.
Leveteau J, MacLeod P. Olfactory discrimination in the rabbit olfactory glomerulus. Science 153: 175–176, 1966.
Mainland J, Sobel N. The sniff is part of the olfactory percept. Chem Senses 31: 181–196, 2006.
Malnic B, Hirono J, Sato T, Buck LB. Combinatorial receptor codes for odors. Cell 96: 713–723, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Man O, Gilad Y, Lancet D. Prediction of the odorant binding site of olfactory receptor proteins by human-mouse comparisons. Protein Sci 13: 240–254, 2004.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Meister M, Bonhoeffer T. Tuning and topography in an odor map on the rat olfactory bulb. J Neurosci 21: 1351–1360, 2001.
Menashe I, Aloni R, Lancet D. A probabilistic classifier for olfactory receptor pseudogenes (Abstract). BMC Bioinformatics 7: 393, 2006.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mombaerts P. Genes and ligands for odorant, vomeronasal and taste receptors. Nat Rev Neurosci 5: 263–278, 2004.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Mori K, Takahashi YK, Igarashi KM, Yamaguchi M. Maps of odorant molecular features in the mammalian olfactory bulb. Physiol Rev 86: 409–433, 2006.
Quine WV. Methods of Logic (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1982.
Rawson NE, Eberwine J, Dotson R, Jackson J, Ulrich P, Restrepo D. Expression of mRNAs encoding for two different olfactory receptors in a subset of olfactory receptor neurons. J Neurochem 75: 185–195, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Rubin BD, Katz LC. Optical imaging of odorant representations in the mammalian olfactory bulb. Neuron 23: 499–511, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Schoppa NE. Synchronization of olfactory bulb mitral cells by precisely timed inhibitory inputs. Neuron 49: 271–283, 2006.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Sharp FR, Kauer JS, Shepherd GM. Local sites of activity-related glucose metabolism in rat olfactory bulb during olfactory stimulation. Brain Res 98: 596–600, 1975.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Shepherd GM. Discrimination of molecular signals by the olfactory receptor neuron. Neuron 13: 771–790, 1994.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Shepherd GM. The Synaptic Organization of the Brain (5th ed.). New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2004.
Slotnick B, Bisulco S. Detection and discrimination of carvone enantiomers in rats with olfactory bulb lesions. Neuroscience 121: 451–457, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Stewart WB, Kauer JS, Shepherd GM. Functional organization of rat olfactory bulb analysed by the 2-deoxyglucose method. J Comp Neurol 185: 715–734, 1979.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Uchida N, Takahashi YK, Tanifuji M, Mori K. Odor maps in the mammalian olfactory bulb: domain organization and odorant structural features. Nat Neurosci 3: 1035–1043, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Verhagen JV, Wesson DW, Netoff TI, White JA, Wachowiak M. Sniffing controls an adaptive filter of sensory input to the olfactory bulb. Nat Neurosci 10: 631–639, 2007.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Wachowiak M, Cohen LB. Representation of odorants by receptor neuron input to the mouse olfactory bulb. Neuron 32: 723–735, 2001.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Wachowiak M, Shipley MT. Coding and synaptic processing of sensory information in the glomerular layer of the olfactory bulb. Semin Cell Dev Biol 17: 411–423, 2006.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Walker JC, Hall SB, Walker DB, Kendal-Reed MS, Hood AF, Niu XF. Human odor detectability: new methodology used to determine threshold and variation. Chem Senses 28: 817–826, 2003.
Wilson RI, Mainen ZF. Early events in olfactory processing. Annu Rev Neurosci 29: 163–201, 2006.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Wise PM, Miyazawa T, Gallagher M, Preti G. Human odor detection of homologous carboxylic acids and their binary mixtures. Chem Senses 32: 475–482, 2007.
Xu F, Kida I, Hyder F, Shulman RG. Assessment and discrimination of odor stimuli in rat olfactory bulb by dynamic functional MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 10601–10606, 2000.
Zhang X, Rodriguez I, Mombaerts P, Firestein S. Odorant and vomeronasal receptor genes in two mouse genome assemblies. Genomics 83: 802–811, 2004.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. H. Gire and N. E. Schoppa Control of On/Off Glomerular Signaling by a Local GABAergic Microcircuit in the Olfactory Bulb J. Neurosci., October 28, 2009; 29(43): 13454 - 13464. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Reisert and D. Restrepo Molecular Tuning of Odorant Receptors and Its Implication for Odor Signal Processing Chem Senses, September 1, 2009; 34(7): 535 - 545. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. C. Hendrickson, S. Krauthamer, J. M. Essenberg, and T. E. Holy Inhibition Shapes Sex Selectivity in the Mouse Accessory Olfactory Bulb J. Neurosci., November 19, 2008; 28(47): 12523 - 12534. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Watanabe, Y. Kirino, and A. Gelperin Neural and molecular mechanisms of microcognition in Limax Learn. Mem., August 26, 2008; 15(9): 633 - 642. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
