g., between hemispheres (Engel et al., 1991, Engel et al., 2001 and Buzsáki et al., 2003), between entorhinal cortex and hippocampus (Chrobak and Buzsáki, 1998), and between remote regions of the cerebral cortex (Gregoriou et al., 2009 and Melloni

SAHA HDAC et al., 2007). Candidates for the mediation of these synchronization phenomena are (1) reciprocal fast-conducting glutamatergic projections that originate from pyramidal cells and impinge on both inhibitory and excitatory neurons in the respective target structure and (2) long-range inhibitory projections that directly link the inhibitory network in one region with that in another (Buzsáki et al., 2004, Jinno et al., 2007 and Caputi et al., 2013). In addition to implementing fast-conducting synchronizing connections, nature seems to rely also on counter-intuitive properties of nonlinear dynamical systems that permit such www.selleckchem.com/products/AG-014699.html synchronization by reciprocal coupling despite conduction

delays (Vicente et al., 2008). The most precisely synchronized cortical rhythm is the fast “ripple” oscillation of the hippocampus (130–160 Hz in rats; Buzsáki et al., 1992 and O’Keefe and Nadel, 1978). The frequency of the ripple decreases somewhat from approximately 160–180 Hz in mice (Buzsáki et al., 2003) to 110 Hz in humans (Bragin et al., 1999; Supplementary Note 2); ripples can arise at any site along the septo-temporal axis of the hippocampus and can remain either localized or spread to the septal or temporal direction (Patel et al., 2013). science The ripple-related synchronous hippocampal output can exert a powerful influence on widespread cortical and subcortical structures in both rats and monkeys (Siapas

et al., 2005 and Logothetis et al., 2012), and appropriate timing of these widespread regions demands structural support. It is not known though whether hippocampal ripples activate their different cortical and subcortical targets by delays, in which case their synchrony would not be guaranteed, or whether their target “hot spots” are coactivated to form a specific engram. Under the latter scenario, one might expect special constraints on the transmission pathways and mechanisms, both of which should scale with brain size. In summary, the preservation of temporal constants that govern brain operations across several orders of magnitude of time scales suggests that the brain’s architectural aspects, such as scaling of the ratios of neuron types, modular growth, system size, inter-system connectivity, synaptic path lengths, and axon caliber, are subordinated to a temporal organizational priority. Of these components, the changing features of axons across species are best documented.