Table 2. The decay of macroscopic currents differs significantly between α3β4 and α3β2, but not between α3β4 and α3β4α5 nAChRs.

The decay of currents in response to 300 μM ACh (in the presence of 0.1 μM atropine) were fit to the sum of two exponential functions (see examples in Fig. 5C and Fig. 6D) with two time constants T_f (fast) and T_s (slow) and 3 amplitudes: A_f (fast), A_s (slow), and a plateau C. Note that time constants don’t differ significantly between α3β4 and α3β4α5 receptors (in SCG neurons taken from α5β2 and β2 KO mice, respectively), whereas the relative contribution of A fast and A slow to the overall current differ slightly between the two genotypes (P < 0.05). In contrast, all parameters except of the cell capacitance (P = 0.2480, Student’s t-test) differ significantly between α3β4 and α3β2 receptors (P < 0.01, Student’s t-tests).

	α3β4 (n = 18)	α3β4α5 (n = 18)		α3β4	α3β4α5
Af	13.0 ± 0.7 %1	16.8 ± 1.1 %1	Tf	444 ± 22 (msec)2	449 ± 30 (msec)2
As	56.3 ± 2.3 %3	48.6 ± 2.6 %3	Ts	5495 ± 496 (msec)4	5592 ± 509 (msec)4
C	30.5 ± 2.8 %5	34.5 ± 2.8 %5
Af + As + C	3747 ± 215 pA6	3907 ± 230 pA6
Capacitance	49.1 ± 2.3 pF7	57.7 ± 3.6 pF7

	α3β2 (n = 35)
Af	50.5 ± 2.1 %	Tf	132 ± 8 (msec)
As	36.2 ± 1.7 %	Ts	1129 ± 89 (msec)
C	13.2 ± 1.0 %
Af + As + C	1166 ± 77 pA
Capacitance	54.1 ± 2.7 pF

¹A_f significantly different between α3β4 and α3β4α5 (P = 0.0373, Student’s t-test)

²T_f not significantly different between α3β4 and α3β4α5 (P = 0.8922, Student’s t-test)

³A_s significantly different between α3β4 and α3β4α5 (P = 0.0119, Student’s t-test)

⁴T_s not significantly different between α3β4 and α3β4α5 (P = 0.8887, Student’s t-test)

⁵C not significantly different between α3β4 and α3β4α5 (P = 0.3323, Student’s t-test)

⁶Total amplitude not significantly different between α3β4 and α3β4α5 (P = 0.6174, Student’s t-test)

⁷Capacitance not significantly different between α3β4 and α3β4α5 (P = 0.0567, Student’s t-test)