Skip to main content
. 2012 Jul 17;1465(8):10–17. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.05.027

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Intrinsic membrane properties of GCs are altered in Ts65Dn mice. A. Superimposed traces of changes in membrane potential of a mature wild-type (WT) cell (P50, filled circle) and a mature Ts65Dn cell (P53, empty circle) in response to constant current injections (once every 5 s, from − 10 pA in + 2 pA steps). Currents normalized by input capacitance are also given. B. Subthreshold voltage–current relationships for wild-type (n = 35–26) and Ts65Dn (n = 18–16) cells. The relationships differ at current injections above + 8 pA (*f1,32 = 4.21, p = 0.048, two-way repeated measures ANOVA). Solid lines are fitted sigmoidal curves. C. Plots of mean input resistance against membrane potential, obtained by differentiating sigmoidal curves in B. D. Relationships between subthreshold membrane potential and injected current-density. They differ above + 1 pA/pF (*f1,41 = 10.11, p = 0.003, two-way repeated measures ANOVA). Solid lines are fitted sigmoidal curves. E. Plots of mean capacitance-specific membrane resistance against membrane potential (first derivative of sigmoidal curves in D). F. Scatter plots and box plots comparing rheobase (the minimum current-density required to evoke APs) in Ts65Dn and wild-type GCs (median values: WT, 5.1 pA/pF, n = 37; Ts65Dn, 3.8 pA/pF, n = 20; *p = 0.007, Mann–Whitney U test). G. Scatter plots showing no difference in AP voltage-threshold (horizontal lines indicate mean values: WT, − 47.8 mV, n = 37; Ts65Dn, − 47.8 mV, n = 20; p = 0.972, Student's t test). Dashed lines in B–E indicate mean resting membrane potentials.