TABLE 6.
Effects of (+)-CIQ on the AMPAR and NMDAR components of mEPSCs in P7–14 mice
| AMPAR Amplitudea |
NMDAR Amplitudeb |
n | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control (pA) | Treatment (pA) | Treatment/Control | Control (pA) | Treatment (pA) | Treatment/Control | |||
| Interneuron | ||||||||
| WT | Vehicle | 18 ± 3.4 | 19 ± 3.3 | 1.07 ± 0.21 | 1.4 ± 0.25 | 1.6 ± 0.26 | 1.15 ± 0.22 | 8 |
| WT | (+)-CIQ | 20 ± 1.8 | 20 ± 1.7 | 0.99 ± 0.03 | 1.2 ± 0.12 | 1.7 ± 0.11* | 1.47 ± 0.10 | 17 |
| Grin2d−/− | (+)-CIQ | 24 ± 4.3 | 23 ± 5.3 | 0.95 ± 0.21 | 1.8 ± 0.17 | 1.6 ± 0.20 | 0.90 ± 0.20 | 4 |
| Pyramidal | ||||||||
| WT | Vehicle | 23 ± 2.6 | 19 ± 1.8 | 0.85 ± 0.16 | 2.5 ± 0.89 | 3.0 ± 1.0 | 1.33 ± 0.27 | 7 |
| WT | (+)-CIQ | 20 ± 1.6 | 19 ± 2.4 | 0.94 ± 0.15 | 2.9 ± 0.32 | 3.0 ± 0.29 | 1.09 ± 0.19 | 10 |
a
AMPAR amplitudes were measured by the amplitude of fast component of the fitted composite mEPSC (mean ± S.E.M.).
b
NMDAR amplitudes were measured as the averaged response between 40 and 50 ms after the peak AMPAR response (mean ± S.E.M.).
*
P < 0.05, Dunnett’s test after a repeat-measure ANOVA (control versus treatment).