Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2014 May;21(5):263–271. doi: 10.1101/lm.033829.113

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

© 2014 Anderson and Strowbridge; Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

This article is distributed exclusively by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press for the first 12 months after the full-issue publication date (see http://learnmem.cshlp.org/site/misc/terms.xhtml). After 12 months, it is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International), as described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

PMC Copyright notice

Figure 5. — IPSPs do not affect simulated afterdepolarizations. (A) Mossy cell responses to slowly decaying current injection designed to mimic afterdepolarization responses in control conditions. IPSPs evoked during simulated ADPs (black trace, timing indicated by an asterisk [*]) did not decrement the membrane potential beyond the drop predicted by combining the simulated ADP and IPSP responses evoked in isolation. Arrows indicate response time points analyzed. (Inset) Similar kinetics of evoked IPSPs at two different membrane potentials in a different mossy cell. IPSPs scaled to the same peak amplitude. (B) Similar protocol evoked in a hilar interneuron also failed to show an effect of evoked IPSPs on simulated ADPs. APs truncated in A and B. (C) Histograms of modulation of real (top) and simulated (bottom) afterdepolarization responses by evoked IPSPs. Values indicated reflect modulation of membrane potential beyond the voltage predicted by analyzing the ADP and IPSP responses evoked in isolation. The two distributions were statistically different (P < 0.0001, two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test).