Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Comp Neurol. 2013 Feb 1;521(2):448–464. doi: 10.1002/cne.23181

TABLE 2.

Tunnels Are Closer to Synapses Than Are Sheets1

Recon Mean distance (nm) SEM (nm) SD of distance (nm) No. of vertices
C, sheet 728 0.47 454 922,397
C, tunnel 706 0.66 436 433,498
D, sheet 401 0.17 157 881,150
D, tunnel 385 0.21 146 467,270
E, sheet 743 0.59 465 615,596
E, tunnel 702 0.50 433 739,397
F, sheet 406 0.19 159 714,478
F, tunnel 383 0.18 145 630,458
G, sheet 746 0.61 469 595,424
G, tunnel 700 0.49 429 755,893
H, sheet 414 0.21 162 568,999
H, tunnel 381 0.16 145 774,364
1

Also see Figure 7. The straight-line distance from each vertex to the centroid of the closest synapse was measured. In all reconstructions, vertices facing tunnel ECS are closer to a synapse on average than vertices facing sheets. In Figure 7 we observed that perisynaptic ECS is tunnel-enriched. Together these results suggest that synapses are more closely associated with tunnels than sheets. Recon refers to reconstruction labels in Figure 2.