Skip to main content
. 2012 Feb 29;32(9):3261–3266. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5024-11.2012

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Pharmacology of nAChR effects. A, Representative traces showing control response to ACh/At (black) and response in the presence of nAChR antagonist (red) and after a 15 min wash (green). All currents were recorded at −70 mV, and sIPSCs were recorded at −40 mV. Ai, Left, 5 μm mecamylamine (Mec). Center, 100 nm MLA. Right, 100 μm DHβE. Aii, 10 μm DHβE. Aiii, 10 μm CTx-AuIB. Among subtype-specific antagonists CTx-AuIB was the most effective in suppressing nAChR currents. Scale bars, 100 pA/5 s. B, Pooled data showing the block of nAChR currents (left) and sIPSC increases (right) by various antagonists. Both DHβE and CTx-AuIB inhibited the sIPSC increases. The y-axis shows responses normalized to control. MLA had no effect on either (n.s.). *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.0001.