Table 2.

Amount of edited GluR-D increases after oxygen–glucose deprivation (OGD) conditioning

AMPA receptor	Sham wash	OGD	p
GluR-B (R)	13.2  ± 2.2	8.84  ± 1.99	0.310
GluR-B (G)	21.1  ± 3.5	19.76  ± 3.66	0.813
GluR-B % R/G edited	61.5  ± 10.2	69.1  ± 6.2	0.509
GluR-D (R)	2.7  ± 0.4	4.23  ± 1.45	0.437
GluR-D (G)	8.9  ± 1.3	23.7  ± 3.82-a	0.002
GluR-D % R/G edited	76.9  ± 11.0	84.9  ± 4.3	0.465

Cells after sublethal oxygen–glucose deprivation were compared with sham-washed controls. R/G editing analysis of GluR-B showed no change in GluR-B (R) and GluR-B (G) after sublethal oxygen–glucose deprivation. GluR-D, however, showed an increase in GluR-D (G) but no change in GluR-D (R) after sublethal oxygen–glucose deprivation (mean ± SEM; n = 18–23 cells).

^F2-a Difference from sham wash level;p < 0.05 using two-tailed Student’s ttest.