Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neuropharmacology. 2014 May 24;85:263–283. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2014.05.010

Table 2.

Christensen et al., 2014

Threshold (mV) Spike width1/2 max (ms) Spike amplitude (mV) Rise slope max (mV/ms) Decay slope max (mV/ms) AHP amplitude (mV) AHP minimum (mV)
All cells
Control (n= 16) −32.3 ± 1.1 1.58 ± 0.1 79,03 ± 2,93 186.6 ± 14 −48.3 ± 4 −20.19 ± 1 −52.52 ± 0.8
Nicotine (n= 16) −31.5 ± 1.1 1.63 ± 0.1 74,66 ± 2,66* 166.4 ± 11 −42.9 ± 4* −19.94 ± 1.1 −51.44± *
Bnos positive cells
Control (n= 8) bnos+ −33.8 ± 1.5 1.66 ± 0.1 82.48 ± 3.89 187.1 ± 20 −46.6 ± 5 −19.25 ± 1.3 −53 ± 1.2
Nicotine (n= 8) bnos+ −32.7 ± 1.4 1.73± 0.1 77.54 ± 3.96 174 ± 19 −42.3 ± 5* −19.44 ± 1.6 −52.1 ± 1.6

Nicotine changes the action potential shape and AHP. The measured values for the examined parameters of the action potential before and in the presence of 500nM bath applied nicotine are shown for both the entire population and the bnos positive population.

*

denotes statistical significances using a two-tailed paired t-test across conditions and suggest that nicotine affects some of the currents involved in shaping action potentials.