Skip to main content
. 2024 May 7;27(6):109920. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.109920

Figure 5.

Figure 5

CB1R-mediated effects at RBC terminals require EPAC1/2 signal pathway

(A) Representative traces (left) and summarized graph (right) showing the effect of the bath application of the EPAC1 inhibitor CE3F4 (50 μM) and subsequent application of WIN (1 μM). Note that CE3F4 did not affect sEPSC frequency or amplitude but eliminated the WIN-mediated decrease of sEPSC frequency and amplitude in AII ACs (n = 12 cells/7 animals, right).

(B) Similarly, bath application of the EPAC2 inhibitor ESI-05 (10 μM) also had no effect on sEPSC frequency or amplitude but eliminated the WIN-mediated decrease of sEPSC frequency and amplitude in AII ACs (n = 9 cells/7 animals). Data are presented as mean ± S.E.M and open circles represent a single cell. ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001. Multiple comparisons were made using one-way ANOVA-RM, followed by a post-hoc Tukey test, or using Friedman ANOVA followed by a post-hoc WMNT test. For statistics, see Table S1.