Skip to main content
. 2015 Oct 5;5:14773. doi: 10.1038/srep14773

Figure 6. Difference in AMPAR/NMDAR current ratios between spine synapses and shaft synapses in the SNc dopamine neurons.

Figure 6

(a) Top, reconstructed image of a recorded dopamine neuron filled with Alexa Fluor 594. Bottom, monochrome image of the target dendritic region expanded from the red boxed region. The yellow dots indicate the locations of two-photon glutamate uncaging for a shaft synapse and a spine synapse. (b) Representative traces of AMPAR and NMDAR uEPSCs at holding potentials of −60 mV (black) and +40 mV (dark gray) in the spine and putative shaft synapse, respectively. Five individual trials and the corresponding average traces (black and dark gray traces) are shown at a spine and shaft synapse. NMDAR uEPSC amplitudes were taken 14 ms after the EPSC onset (black dashed lines). (c) Scatter plot showing the relationship between AMPAR uEPSCs and NMDAR uEPSCs in spine (red triangles) and shaft (blue triangles) synapses. The gray dashed line is the regression line for a linear relationship. (d) Amplitudes of uEPSCs from AMPAR (at −60 mV) in spines were smaller in shaft synapses, whereas the amplitudes of uEPSCs from NMDAR (at +40 mV) were larger (spine synapse, n = 17; shaft synapse, n = 17). (e) Difference in AMPA/NMDA current ratios between spine and shaft synapses (spine, n = 17; shaft, n = 17). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 by unpaired t-tests. Error bars indicate SEM.