Skip to main content
. 2016 Nov 10;6:36885. doi: 10.1038/srep36885

Figure 3. PV+ INs, but not SST+ INs, regulate GC responses to single-shock stimulation of PP.

Figure 3

(a) Schematic of a mouse brain injected with an AAV5 vector carrying EF1α-DIO-eNpHR3.0-eYFP into the ventral hippocampal DG. (b) Left to right, two-photon image stacks of the ventral DG from Gad65-, Pvalb-, and Sst-cre mice 6 weeks after virus injection. (c) Example spikes evoked by current pulse injection (top) in a PV-eNpHR+ IN in the absence (middle) and in the presence of optogenetic silencing (bottom). (d) The same experiment as (c) in a SST-eNpHR+ IN. (e) Schematic of the recording configuration for (f–h). (f) Top, example traces of pSpike recordings from the GCL under control conditions (black, left), under light stimulation (−GAD65; green, middle), and after gabazine treatment (red, right) evoked by PP stimulation at two different stimulus intensities in a Gad65-cre mouse. Bottom, pSpike area is plotted against stimulus intensity under control conditions (black), light stimulation (green), and after gabazine treatment (red) in Gad65-cre mice (sigmoidal fit to the data-points). Error bars indicate the SEM. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. (g) The same experimental configuration as in (f) was used for Pvalb-cre mice. *P < 0.05. (h) The same experimental configuration as in (f) was used for Sst-cre mice. ns, not significant.