Skip to main content
. 2011 Jan 31;589(Pt 7):1587–1601. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2011.204362

Figure 5. Lack of presynaptic action of IEM-1925.

Figure 5

In the paired-pulse stimulation protocol PPR does not change after bath application of IEM-1925 (5 μm) in pyramidal cells (A) or in FSIs (B). C, sEPSC recordings in cortical FSIs in the absence and in the presence of IEM-1925 (5 μm). Bath application of IEM-1925 does not affect the sEPSC frequency. D, voltage dependence of IEM-1925 action. Bath application of IEM-1925 (5 μm) failed to reduce eEPSC amplitude in giant aspiny interneurons (1 Hz stimulation frequency) when the cell was clamped at +40 mV; in the same experiments, eEPSC amplitude was strongly reduced when membrane potential was switched to −80 mV. Total elimination of the inhibitory effect by a change in postsynaptic voltage suggests a postsynaptic mechanism of action (n.s., not significant).