Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2005 May;25(10):4166–4175. doi: 10.1128/MCB.25.10.4166-4175.2005

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

Copyright © 2005, American Society for Microbiology

PMC Copyright notice

FIG. 7. — Normal basal synaptic transmission, paired-pulse facilitation and long-term potentiation in NLRR4^−/− mice. (a) The input-output relationships of AMPA receptor-mediated excitatory postsynaptic potentials of wild-type (open circles, n = 12) and mutant (closed circles, n = 9) mice. Shown are the mean synaptic responses to stimuli of various strengths for the NLRR4^−/− and wild-type (+/+) slices. There was no significant difference between the two genotypes. Insets display representative traces evoked with four different stimulus intensities of 1.8 to 3.42 V. (b) Paired-pulse facilitation induced by stimulating afferent fibers twice at 50, 100, and 200 ms in wild-type (open circles) and NLRR4^−/− (solid circles) mice. The ratio of the slope of the second excitatory postsynaptic potentials to that of the first excitatory postsynaptic potentials was calculated (at 50-ms interstimulus interval (ISI): NLRR4^−/−, 1.41 ± 0.04%, n = 7; wild-type, 1.45 ± 0.05%, n = 10, P > 0.6; at 100-ms ISI: NLRR4^−/−, 1.38 ± 0.04%, n = 7; wild-type, 1.39 ± 0.03%, n = 10, P > 0.8; at 200-ms ISI: NLRR4^−/−, 1.26 ± 0.03%, n = 7; wild-type, 1.29 ± 0.04%, n = 10, P > 0.6). (c) The averaged time course of long-term potentiation for 60 min after tetanic stimulation for wild-type (open circle, n = 20) and NLRR4^−/− (solid circle, n = 18) mice. At time zero, tetanic stimulation (100 Hz, 1 s) was delivered to the Schaffer collateral/commissural pathway. Initial excitatory postsynaptic potentials slopes were normalized for each experiment to the averaged slope value during the baseline period (−30 to 0 min). Representative traces (average of 10 consecutive responses) in the inset were excitatory postsynaptic potentials obtained at the times indicated by the numbers on the graph. (d) Summary of long-term potentiation calculated as the percent increase in the mean excitatory postsynaptic potential slope from 50 to 60 min after tetanic stimulation compared with the mean excitatory postsynaptic potential slope during the baseline period (NLRR4^−/−, 137.8 ± 6.5% of baseline, n = 18; wild type, 146.7 ± 3.9% of baseline, n = 20, P > 0.2). (e) The averaged time course of long-term potentiation for 120 min after tetanic stimulation for wild-type (open circle, n = 5) and NLRR4^−/− (solid circle, n = 6) mice. This graph consists of a part of the data shown in Fig. 8C, which was obtained from the slices with 1 h of additional recording. (f) Summary of long-term potentiation calculated as the percent increase in the mean excitatory postsynaptic potential slope from 110 to 120 min after tetanic stimulation compared with the mean excitatory postsynaptic potential slope during the baseline period (NLRR4^−/−, 143.2 ± 9.8% of baseline, n = 6; wild-type, 146.3 ± 7.2% of baseline, n = 5, P > 0.8).