Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Feb 27.
Published in final edited form as: Hum Mutat. 2020 Oct 1;41(11):1999–2011. doi: 10.1002/humu.24109

Figure 3. Effects of VAMP2 variants and DAP on evoked release.

Figure 3.

(a) p.R56L and p.G73W variants decrease the overall synaptic charge transfer, measured as the area under the curve of an evoked inhibitory postsynaptic current (eIPSC). DAP treatments increase synaptic charge transfer (WT 0.655 ± 0.141 nC, WT+DAP 1.195 ± 0.128 nC, p.R56L 0.315 ± 0.055 nC, p.G73W 0.323 ± 0.045 nC, p.R56X 0.593 ± 0.088 nC, p.R56X+DAP 1.287 ± 0.187 nC, *P<0.05 for WT vs p.R56L and WT vs p.G73W, #P<0.05 for WT vs WT+DAP and p.R56X vs p.R56X+DAP, two-tailed t-test). Variants do not change the synchronicity of the release (*P>0.05 for WT vs p.R56L, p.G73W and p.R56X, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test), but corresponding 3,4-DAP treatments result in more asynchronous release (*P<0.001 for both WT vs WT+DAP and p.R56X vs p.R56X+DAP, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). (b) Normalized peak amplitudes of eIPSCs in response to 10 consecutive stimulations at 10 Hz. p.G73W and p.R56L variants cause less depression after initial stimulation compared to WT VAMP2 (*P<0.05 for WT VAMP2 vs p.G73W and WT VAMP2 vs p.R56L, multiple t-tests for each stimulation). Although p.R56X responds similarly as WT, corresponding DAP treatments cause more robust depression in response to stimulation (P<0.05 for *WT vs WT+DAP and #p.R56X vs p.R56X+DAP, multiple t-tests for each stimulation).