, 2006; Nelson et al., 2006). The connections between neurons have also been well characterized with an increasing emphasis on the relationship between connectivity, cell types, and anatomy. There are now many examples of stereotyped connections between different neuronal types—excitatory neurons synapse onto the cell bodies of inhibitory neurons but avoid excitatory somata, chandelier cells form synapses exclusively onto the axon initial segments of

pyramidal cells, and gap junctions are made between inhibitory neurons of a single class (reviewed in Brown and Hestrin, 2009). Of course, the question of Fulvestrant mouse what defines a cortical cell type has not been settled (Nelson et al., 2006; Ascoli et al., 2008). In particular, when might differences in the functional properties of neurons, or their patterns of connections, be caused by unidentified distinctions between cell classes or patterns of gene expression? A great simplifying assumption has been that neurons of a given class are all equivalent. In this case, the only thing we need to know about a neuron is its class and anatomical location, for instance, a pyramidal cell at the bottom of layer 2/3 in primary visual cortex, and the anatomical extent of its dendrites and axons. If this were the case, we would only need to know the find more generic structure of the microcircuit,

plus the range of in vivo functional properties of the afferents that impinge upon the circuit, to begin modeling its in vivo physiology. A corollary of this assumption—that cortical neurons of a given class are identical—is that connections between neurons are nonspecific, or random other than cell-type specificity. The strongest formulation of this idea has become known as Peters’ Rule (Braitenberg and Schüz, 1998), “The distribution of synapses from various origins … on the dendritic tree of any one neuron reflect[s] simply the availability of those presynaptic elements in the tissue … Conversely, the postsynaptic partners

of any axonal tree would simply reflect the distribution of the postsynaptic elements.” Although this point of view was quite influential, it is becoming increasingly clear that connections between cortical neurons are far from random. Instead, there are several lines of evidence showing that connections between cortical neurons can be highly specific, both because of cell-type-specific PLEKHM2 connections as well as other, more poorly understood factors (Yoshimura et al., 2005; Song et al., 2005; Perin et al., 2011). In order to discuss structure in a cortical network, it is useful to consider three broad classes of specificity: topographic specificity, cell-type specificity, and functional specificity (Lee and Reid, 2011). Topographic specificity is seen, for instance, when axons respect a laminar boundary or a functional map, such as for retinotopy or preferred orientation ( Mooser et al., 2004). If Peters’ rule holds, then topographic specificity alone specifies the wiring diagram.