Table 3.
Similar differences between WT and CAR in R6/2 and Q175
| Percentage difference, CAR vs. WT | ||
|---|---|---|
| Property | R6/2 | Q175 |
| SON properties and network activity | ||
| Membrane potential | −12.9 | −7.2 |
| Whole-cell input resistance | 116.7 | 67.0 |
| Rheobasic current | −48.7 | −26.5 |
| Half-effective current | −41.2 | −20.0 |
| Maximal AP frequency | −10.1 | −11.1 |
| sIPSC frequency (KCl) | 427.1 | — |
| sIPSC frequency (CsCl) | — | 404.0 |
| Unitary synaptic connections | ||
| Mean eIPSC amplitude | −31.9 | −34.0 |
| Maximal eIPSC amplitude | −31.4 | −39.9 |
| P (mean eIPSC/maximal eIPSC) | −7.6 | −12.1 |
| eIPSC failure rate | 122.2 | 146.3 |
| eIPSC CV | 16.5 | 23.0 |
| PPR (eEPSC2/eEPSC1) | 14.2 | 16.5 |
| Asynchronicity index (100 Hz test) | 151.1 | 54.8 |
| Pves | −27.7 | −28.8 |
| m (mean eIPSC/Q) | −37.4 | −37.5 |
All evaluated parameters in this table showed statistically significant differences between WT and CAR. Parameters that were not different (for instance, quantal size Q) are omitted. The percent difference is the difference between WT and CAR mean values in % of WT mean. Note that in Q175 the HD-related differences in membrane potential, input resistance, rheobasic current and the asynchrony index were less pronounced. For abbreviations see list on Introduction page.