Figure 6. Con-A shifts the relative contribution of conducting states.

A and B, ten normalized test responses taken from Fig. 5A and detailed to show their temporal profile before (A) and after (B) Con-A treatment. Note that during the early phase of the recovery process in both cases, test responses re-enter desensitization with slower kinetics (see arrows). C, schematic showing only the recovery steps in the dimer model of GluR6 desensitization. G₁, G₂ and G₃ are the macroscopic conductances associated with different states of the kinetic model and r₂ and r₁ are the rate constants that describe the rate of recovery from desensitization. The transition steps that lead from state G₃ to state G₁ have been omitted since Con-A treatment did not affect GluR6 desensitization kinetics (see Fig. 2). D, data from Fig. 5B re-fitted assuming that GluR6 receptors recover from desensitization in two sequential steps as shown in C. E, plots summarizing the contribution of conducting states G₁-G₃ to the macroscopic response at a range of interpulse intervals in control conditions (upper panel) and following Con-A treatment (lower panel). Note that the scale of the ordinate axis in the lower plot is an order of magnitude larger. F, summary plot showing the values of rate constants r₁ and r₂ estimated from fits of control and Con-A data shown in D.