Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jul 10.
Published in final edited form as: Curr Biol. 2017 Jun 22;27(13):1888–1899.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.081

Figure 2. Reactivation-dependent synaptic reconsolidation blockade at each input after rapamycin.

Figure 2

(A) Experimental protocol; see Results and Methods.

(B) Summary of the changes in synaptic strengths +/− 5-HT application on day 3 followed by +/− rapamycin. A two-way ANOVA indicated a significant effect of group × repeated measures for both S1 (F18, 120 = 237.19; p < 0.0001) and S2 (F18, 120 = 119.814; p < 0.0001). Pairwise comparisons at each time point indicated significant facilitation in S1 for all stimulated groups compared to Cont + 5-HT on day 3, 4 and 6 (**p < 0.01). In S2, pairwise comparisons indicated significant facilitation for all stimulated groups compared to Cont + 5-HT on day 3, 4 and 4 (**p < 0.01), except for 5-HT reactivation plus rapamycin, which was significantly different than stimulated alone on day 4 and 6 (##p < 0.01).

(C) Summary of the changes in synaptic strength +/− HS followed by +/− rapamycin. A two-way ANOVA indicated a significant effect of group × repeated measures for both S1 (F18, 120 = 72.987; p < 0.0001) and S2 (F18, 120 = 74.701; p < 0.0001). Pairwise comparisons indicated significant facilitation in S1 for all stimulated groups compared to Cont + HSS1 on day 3, 4 and 6 (**p < 0.01), except for HSS1 reactivation plus rapamycin, which was significantly different than stimulated alone on day 4 and 6 (##p < 0.01). In S2, pairwise comparisons indicated significant facilitation for all stimulated groups compared to Cont + HSS1 (**p < 0.01) on day 3, 4 and 6.