Figure 3. Synaptic plasticity is uncorrelated with activation during mating.

(A) Arc-GFP labeling of AOB GCs activated by the stud male, visualized with live-tissue 2-photon imaging. Left, naïve control animal; right, mated female. (B) Fluorescence-targeted recordings of both unlabeled and labeled populations of GCs. (C,D) Mean amplitude and frequency of sEPSPs are similar for GFP(-) and GFP(+) GCs in mated mice (amplitude: p=0.82; frequency, p=0.58; t-test; n = 9 and 13 cells in 10 mice, GFP(+) and (-) groups subdivided from data in Figure 3—figure supplement 1). (E,F) GFP labeling is uncorrelated with either amplitude or frequency of spontaneous excitatory input to GCs (regression slope not different from zero; amplitude: p=0.70 and 0.22 for sensory-exposed and mated groups respectively; frequency: p=0.50 and 0.92; linear regression t-test; n = 17, 19 and 30 neurons in 5, 9, and 12 mice for naïve, exposure and mated groups). (G) Fos-GFP labeling reveals a subpopulation of mating-activated MCs (arrowheads). (H) Targeted recordings of stud-activated MCs. (I,J) Mean amplitude and frequency of mIPSCs are not significantly different between GFP(-) and GFP(+) MC populations (p=0.33 and 0.38 respectively; t-test; n = 8 and 5 cells in 5 mice; groups subdivided from data in Figure 2). (K,L) Amplitude and frequency of mIPSCs show no correlation with Fos-GFP intensity in MCs (regression slope not different from zero; p=0.64 and 0.97 respectively; linear regression t-test; n = 16 neurons from 5 mice). Dashed lines show 95% confidence intervals.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25421.011

Figure 3—figure supplement 1. Mating increases fluorescent labeling in AOB and increases inhibitory synaptic input onto MCs.

(A) Cumulative histogram of Arc-GFP intensity. Mating, but not sensory exposure alone, increases labeling in GCs (p<10⁻⁴⁵, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test; n = 14, 9, and 18 slices for naïve, sensory-exposed, and mated groups respectively). (B) Mating produces robust increases in Fos-GFP labeling of MCs (p=0.0004, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test; n = 8 and 7 slices from 4 and 5 mice for naïve and mated groups respectively). (C) Representative synaptic currents measured from naïve and mated females. Currents are inward due to a high chloride recording solution. (D) Cumulative distribution of event amplitude (p<0.001; Kolmogorov–Smirnov test; n = 6 and 16 cells in 3 and 5 mice). (E) The mean amplitude of inhibitory currents is unchanged in MCs from naïve and mated (red) animals (p=0.29; t-test). (F,G) Mating increased the frequency of inhibitory input to MCs, reflected in both the leftward shift in the distribution of event intervals and increase in mean frequency (p=0.001; t-test).

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25421.013