Skip to main content
. 2017 Jun 16;6:e25421. doi: 10.7554/eLife.25421

Figure 6. Plasticity in MC responsiveness is specific to mating-activated neurons.

(A) Both GFP(-) and GFP(+) MCs show similar initial responses to current stimuli. (B) Mean firing rate profiles for GFP(+) and GFP(-) MCs in Fos-GFP females after mating (mean ± SEM; n = 7 and 11 cells in 5 and 7 mice). (C, D) Initial MC output is similar between GFP(-) and GFP(+) groups (firing rate, p=0.81; spike count, p=0.63; t-test). (E) Representative MC responses to repetitive stimulation in mated females. (F) After mating, GFP(-) MCs maintain consistent firing, but the output of stud-activated GFP(+) neurons is dramatically attenuated over time (mean ± SEM; n = 7 and 11 cells in 7 mice). (G) Cumulative histograms indicate a shift towards greater suppression in the MCs activated during mating (p=0.18; Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). (H) Mean suppression after 10 trials for GFP(-) and GFP(+) neurons (spike count on 10th vs. 1st trial: unlabeled, 115 ± 17%, p=0.41; labeled, 30.7 ± 12.3%; p=0.0017; t-test). (I) Cumulative action potential output of GFP(-) and GFP(+) MCs, averaged across all recorded neurons.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25421.018

Figure 6—source data 1. This spreadsheet contains the firing rate and spike count data for mitral cells used to generate the bar plots and average data shown in Figures 6C, D, F and H.
These data can be opened with Microsoft Excel or with open-source alternatives such as OpenOffice.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25421.019
elife-25421-fig6-data1.xlsx (34.3KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.25421.019

Figure 6.

Figure 6—figure supplement 1. Correlated plasticity and GFP labeling are independent of selection criteria.

Figure 6—figure supplement 1.

(A) Arc-GFP labeling intensity for the GCs in our recording sample (green markers) superimposed on the distribution for all detectable GCs (gray line, normalized exponential fit to imaging data). Our dataset spans the majority of intensity values. (B, C, D) Frequency and amplitude of sEPSPs and resting membrane potential of GCs, respectively. Results comparing GFP(+) and GFP(-) populations are consistent across various selection criteria (upper vs. lower 1/2, 1/3, and 1/4 of the recorded cells). (E) Fos-GFP labeling intensity for recorded MCs as in (A). Triangles indicate cells used to analyze synaptic inhibition; circles, cells used to analyze slow firing suppression. (F, G, H) mIPSC frequency, mIPSC amplitude, and firing rate suppression for repetitive stimuli, respectively. Results were again consistent across a range of selection criteria.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25421.020
Figure 6—figure supplement 2. Slow attenuation is absent in GFP(+) MCs labeled by sensory exposure alone.

Figure 6—figure supplement 2.

(A) Firing rates are elevated in GFP(+) MCs relative to unlabeled neurons. (B, C) Increased firing rates for initial stimuli in GFP(+) vs. GFP(-) MCs in the absence of mating. Peak rates, 30.5 ± 2.2 Hz vs. 15.5 ± 2.7 Hz respectively, mean ± SEM; p<0.05, t-test; n = 5 and 7 cells in 4 mice). (D) Example MC responses to repetitive current injection for both GFP(-) and GFP(+) neurons. (E) In the absence of mating, both MC groups maintain stable output (mean ± SEM; n = 5 and 7 cells in 4 mice). (F) GFP(+) and GFP(-) cells show similar levels of suppression on trial 10 (p=0.77; t-test).
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25421.021