Skip to main content
. 2017 Sep 12;595(20):6517–6539. doi: 10.1113/JP274897

Table 2.

Summary of electrophysiological recordings

GluA2iQ constructs Auxiliary subunit constructs n Holding potential (mV) τ (weighted) (ms) SS/P
Data set 1 (dual expression without using intein)
GluA2iQ 10 −70 5.73 ± 0.150 0.010 ± 0.0031
GluA2iQ CNIH3 6 −70 35.9 ± 2.69 0.13 ± 0.021
GluA2iQ‐C528L 7 −70 4.67 ± 0.173 0.062 ± 0.049
GluA2iQ‐C528L CNIH3 7 −70 11.1 ± 1.15 0.037 ± 0.0070
GluA2iQ‐L789F 6 −70 4.70 ± 0.224 0.013 ± 0.0030
GluA2iQ‐L789F CNIH3 6 −70 4.43 ± 0.211 0.025 ± 0.0053
GluA2iQ‐A793F 6 −70 9.13 ± 1.10 0.030 ± 0.0066
GluA2iQ‐A793F CNIH3 8 −70 34.1 ± 5.10 0.44 ± 0.025
GluA2iQ‐A793L 7 −70 5.17 ± 0.403 0.036 ± 0.015
GluA2iQ‐A793L CNIH3 5 −70 5.05 ± 0.832 0.060 ± 0.017
GluA2iQ‐A793G 7 −70 9.00 ± 1.42 0.10 ± 0.025
GluA2iQ‐A793G CNIH3 5 −70 8.92 ± 0.711 0.066 ± 0.019
GluA2iQ‐C528L‐A793F 8 −70 6.23 ± 0.444 0.069 ± 0.051
GluA2iQ‐C528L‐A793F CNIH3 5 −70 15.2 ± 1.94 0.12 ± 0.028
Data set 2 (intein trans spliced)
GluA2iQ 11 −70 4.87 ± 0.312 0.012 ± 0.0017
GluA2iQ Stg 10 −70 14.5 ± 0.707 0.20 ± 0.018
GluA2iQ(DDD) Stg 15 −70 12.5 ± 0.806 0.11 ± 0.011
GluA2iQ(AGA) Stg 11 −70 12.0 ± 0.934 0.17 ± 0.029
GluA2iQ(EGE) Stg 5 −70 8.85 ± 0.661 0.10 ± 0.0095
Data set 3 (intein trans spliced)
GluA2iQ 8 −60 5.78 ± 0.520 0.014 ± 0.0028
GluA2iQ Stg 10 −60 15.0 ± 1.18 0.19 ± 0.020
GluA2iQ‐C528L 7 −60 5.87 ± 0.219 0.056 ± 0.0081
GluA2iQ‐C528L Stg 10 −60 9.20 ± 0.973 0.083 ± 0.016
GluA2iQ‐L789F 11 −60 4.25 ± 0.248 0.034 ± 0.0060
GluA2iQ‐L789F Stg 8 −60 6.71 ± 0.356 0.022 ± 0.0019
GluA2iQ‐A793F 13 −60 7.62 ± 0.427 0.053 ± 0.011
GluA2iQ‐A793F Stg 12 −60 10.3 ± 0.834 0.084 ± 0.015
GluA2iQ‐G804A 7 −60 5.15 ± 0.254 0.040 ± 0.010
GluA2iQ‐G804A Stg 16 −60 16.4 ± 1.29 0.26 ± 0.026
GluA2iQ‐M807L 6 −60 6.05 ± 0.837 0.057 ± 0.027
GluA2iQ‐M807L Stg 10 −60 12.5 ± 1.03 0.14 ± 0.019
GluA2iQ‐L808F 8 −60 5.64 ± 0.204 0.019 ± 0.0025
GluA2iQ‐L808F Stg 8 −60 12.3 ± 1.68 0.20 ± 0.031
Data set 4 (intein trans spliced)
GluA2iQ Stg 10 −60 12.9 ± 1.08 0.17 ± 0.025
GluA2iQ Stg‐KK52EE 7 −60 28.6 ± 5.31 0.45 ± 0.040
GluA2iQ Stg‐KK53Enull 7 −60 23.6 ± 2.88 0.48 ± 0.036
GluA2iQ Stg‐K53null 9 −60 14.9 ± 1.14 0.21 ± 0.022
GluA2iQ Stg‐KK52AA 6 −60 15.9 ± 1.50 0.31 ± 0.027
GluA2iQ Stg‐E70K 5 −60 14.4 ± 1.24 0.11 ± 0.015
GluA2iQ Stg‐ED84RK 7 −60 15.5 ± 2.52 0.17 ± 0.036
GluA2iQ Stg‐DAD86KAK 6 −60 15.7 ± 0.581 0.22 ± 0.022
GluA2iQ Stg‐EAD90KAK 6 −60 22.4 ± 3.04 0.47 ± 0.077
Data set 5 (intein trans spliced)
GluA2iQ Stg 20 −60 13.3 ± 0.572 0.20 ± 0.014
GluA2iQ Stg‐KK52EE 19 −60 21.1 ± 1.42 0.43 ± 0.013
GluA2iQ Stg‐KK53Enull 12 −60 20.6 ± 1.75 0.42 ± 0.018
GluA2iQ‐C528L Stg 16 −60 8.82 ± 0.747 0.11 ± 0.020
GluA2iQ‐C528L Stg‐KK52EE 15 −60 13.0 ± 1.32 0.23 ± 0.025
GluA2iQ‐C528L Stg‐KK53Enull 10 −60 15.5 ± 1.90 0.29 ± 0.042
  one‐way ANOVA with Dunnett's post hoc (vs. GluA2iQ+Stg)
Data set 6 (dual expression without using intein) τ (weighted) SS/P
GluA2iQ Stg 9 −60 10.4 ± 0.531 0.11 ± 0.010
GluA2iQ‐C528L Stg 10 −60 6.90 ± 0.409 0.059 ± 0.41 0.0049 (**) 0.0571 (n.s.)
GluA2iQ‐L789F Stg 10 −60 4.72 ± 0.388 0.027 ± 0.0038 0.0001 (****) 0.0004 (***)
GluA2iQ‐A793F Stg 10 −60 6.25 ± 0.526 0.099 ± 0.020 0.0006 (***) 0.978 (n.s)
GluA2iQ‐G804A Stg 8 −60 12.5 ± 0.813 0.16 ± 0.016 0.24 (n.s.) 0.2144 (n.s.)
GluA2iQ‐M807L Stg 10 −60 12.8 ± 1.26 0.15 ± 0.021 0.111 (n.s.) 0.35 (n.s.)
GluA2iQ‐L808F Stg 9 −60 10.7 ± 0.660 0.14 ± 0.013 0.9997 (n.s.) 0.7755 (n.s.)
Data set 7 (dual expression without using intein)
GluA2iQ Stg 9 −60 11.5 ± 0.579 0.14 ± 0.015
GluA2iQ Stg‐KK52EE 8 −60 21.1 ± 1.65 0.40 ± 0.022 0.0002 (***) 0.0001 (****)
GluA2iQ Stg‐KK53Enull 6 −60 15.6 ± 1.02 0.34 ± 0.015 0.2079 (n.s.) 0.0001 (****)
GluA2iQ Stg‐K53null 7 −60 15.3 ± 1.96 0.24 ± 0.035 0.2164 (n.s.) 0.0223 (*)
GluA2iQ Stg‐KK52AA 8 −60 15.1 ± 2.03 0.22 ± 0.030 0.2713 (n.s.) 0.0802 (n.s.)

The experiment data were categorized in seven data sets. Small differences in gating parameters of the same construct (for example GluA2iQ alone) are likely due to uncontrollable small variations in experimental conditions. A holding potential of −60 mV was preferred for experiments using stargazin because the current amplitude was overall greater. Mean ± SEM are shown. Numbers of experimental replicates (outside‐out patches) are indicated by n. No data was re‐used between data sets. Statistical significance was examined within each data set using one‐ or two‐way ANOVA with appropriate post hoc tests for multiple comparisons as descried in the text.