Skip to main content
. 2018 Jun 22;7:e34700. doi: 10.7554/eLife.34700

Figure 4. Structure-dynamics relationship of hippocampal spines.

(A) 3D reconstruction of a dendrite imaged on days 0, 2 and 4. Spines persisting for more than 2 days (#0–8, blue), and 2 days or less (#9–20, salmon) are illustrated. (B) Spine head volumes measured on reconstructed dendrites (p<0.0001, Mann-Whitney test; n = 14 dendrites, 3 mice; box plot shows median and 10, 25, 75 and 90th percentiles). (C, D) 3D morphology plots visualizing the populations of spines observed persistent for more than 2 days and 2 days or less (C), and their affiliation to identified clusters 1, 2 and 3 (D) (see also Figure 4—figure supplement 1A). Plotted are, the ratio of mean head to neck diameters (ØHead/ØNeck), spine length and maximum head diameter (Ømax Head). (E) Quantification of spine proportions within identified clusters, distinguishing spines of different persistence (>2 days versus ≤2 days). (F) Table summarizing the morphological parameters utilized for cluster analysis: ØHead/ØNeck, Ømax Head and length of spines, for spines that persist for >2 days (blue) and ≤2 days (salmon). Data are represented as median and interquartile range (25th–75th percentile). Significant differences are marked by asterisks (***p<0.001, ****p<0.0001, unpaired t-test or Mann-Whitney test; for all comparisons see Figure 4—figure supplement 1B; n = 14 dendrites, 3 mice).

Figure 4—source data 1. Underlying data for Figure 4.
elife-34700-fig4-data1.xlsx (109.7KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.34700.022

Figure 4.

Figure 4—figure supplement 1. Cluster analysis of spine morphology.

Figure 4—figure supplement 1.

(A) Dendrogram displaying the Euclidean distances of individual spines and their respective assignment to one of the three identified clusters. (B) Statistical comparison of morphological parameters between spines of different observed persistence (>2 days versus ≤2 days; n = 14 dendrites, 3 mice).