Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Mar 16.
Published in final edited form as: Cell Rep. 2019 Feb 19;26(8):1979–1987.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.01.100

Figure 1. Expansion of Trigeminal Mechanoreceptors with Slow and Intermediate Mechanocurrent.

Figure 1.

(A) Images of duck species used in the study. Photos courtesy of Judy Gallagher (wood, image cropped, CC BY 2.0), Frank Schulenburg (ruddy, image cropped, CC BY-SA 3.0), Peter Massas (harlequin, image cropped, CC BY-SA 2.0), Dick Daniels (hooded merganser and black, image cropped, CC BY-SA-3.0), Alan D. Wilson (lesser scaup, image cropped, CC BY-SA-2.5), and Eve Schneider (Pekin), Bagriantsev lab.

(B) Exemplar whole-cell MA current traces recorded in dissociated duck TG neurons in response to a 150 ms mechanical indentation (green bar) with a glass probe for a depth of 3–15 mm at Ehold = −74.6 mV. Scale bar, 1 nA.

(C) Quantification of the proportions of neurons with the fast, intermediate, and slow MA current types (χ2 test; p < 0.0001). Numbers indicate total numbers of neurons analyzed for each species.

(D–G) Correlation between the percentage of mechanosensitive neurons and the percentage of neurons with intermediate (D), slow (E), intermediate and slow (F), and fast (G) MA current, fitted to the linear equation. r is the Pearson correlation coefficient, P is the probability that observed variation results from random sampling, and dotted lines show the 95% confidence interval. Data were collected from 2–6 birds for each species.

See also Figures S1 and S2.