Figure 5.

Manipulation of Cl⁻ ion flux alters the suppression profile of glycine pre-application in the NM. (A) Schematic of voltage clamp protocol where Cl⁻ flux is minimized by holding the membrane at the reversal potential for Cl⁻ during the glycine application. (B) Current response from protocol in (A) in the absence (Bi) and presence (Bii) glycine pre-application (red line). Note the similarity between the traces in (Bi) and (Bii), suggesting minimal current due to glycine application. (C) Expanded view of evoked current responses from the boxed region in (B). (D) Average peak amplitude of the evoked current for the population of cells tested at V_rev Cl⁻. (E) Ratio of peak amplitude between Gly/no Gly conditions in control and when glycine pre-application occurred at V_rev Cl⁻. Results were similar to glycine block (no suppression observed, Figure 2C). Dashed line represents a ratio of 1, indicating no suppression.