Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Oct 30.
Published in final edited form as: Nature. 2015 Apr 30;520(7549):675–678. doi: 10.1038/nature14366

Figure 4. Electrophysiological, morphological, and transcriptional profiles of NAc and CeM projectors.

Figure 4

a, Population average of action potential (AP) traces. b, No detectable difference in AP half-width (unpaired t-test, t20=1.82, P=0.085). c, Representative trace from AP threshold detection protocol. d, No detectable difference in AP threshold between NAc and CeM projectors (unpaired t-test, t20=1.05, P=0.31). e–g, Representative trace from current injection protocol to determine firing rate responses (f) and action potential probability (g) over time, which was different between NAc and CeM projectors (Interaction, two-way ANOVA F9,180=2.32, **P=0.0017) in the first 100 ms of current injection (t200=4.55, ***P<0.001). h–i, Representative reconstructions (h) and population data (i) from Scholl analysis. j, Schematic of transcriptome profiling. k, Candidate genes identified as differentially expressed between NAc and CeM projectors at 0.01 quantile fold-change threshold (Extended Fig. 9a) across two independent repetitions of RNA-Seq. Results show mean and s.e.m.