Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Sep 26.
Published in final edited form as: Brain Res. 2013 Aug 9;1532:85–98. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2013.08.012

Fig. 4. Comparison of effects of D2R and CB1R antagonists on LTD induction in the four G × E groups.

Fig. 4

A, C Time course of PS amplitude normalized to initial 10 minute baseline following HFS in the presence of CB1R antagonist, AM251, (2 μM) (A) and D2R antagonist, sulpiride, (10 μM) (C) for the four G × E experimental groups. Samples with D2R antagonist n = 6- 8 slices; samples with CB1 antagonist n = 6- 7 slices; values shown are mean ± SEM. (WT/Sac, black ○; WT/PNE, green □; HET/Sac, blue △; HET/PNE, red ◇). B, D Percent recovery of PS at 30 minutes following HFS in the presence of AM251 (B) and sulpiride (D) shown in A and C for the four G × E experimental groups. Post-hoc tests for D2R antagonists revealed HET/PNE group significantly less recovery than other groups (p < 0.01). E - H Effect of AM251 (CB1) or sulpiride (D2) on percent recovery of PS at 30 minutes following HFS in WT/Sac, WT/PNE, HET/Sac and HET/PNE groups.