Skip to main content
. 2019 Jul 3;103(1):102–117.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.04.022

Table 1.

Passive and Active Biophysical Properties of Grp-eGFP and Grpr-eGFP Neurons

RMP (mV) Cm (pF) Rinput (MΩ) Rheobase (pA) Action Potential
Threshold (mV) Amplitude (mV) Width (ms)a AHP (mV)
GRP (n = 31) −65.9 ± 1.2 37.0 ± 2.3 1682 ± 104 12.6 ± 1.2 −38.4 ± 0.5 69.0 ± 1.7 3.71 ± 0.14 −29.6 ± 0.8
 Versus GRPR delayed ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗∗
 Versus GRPR tonic ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
 Versus GRPR phasic ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
 Versus GRPR gap ∗∗∗
 Versus GRPR initial bursting ∗∗
GRPR delayed (n = 53) −73.3 ± 0.7 40.9 ± 2.0 1064 ± 49 28.1 ± 2.1 −41.5 ± 0.4 67.0 ± 2.8 2.18 ± 0.05 −29.1 ± 0.7
 Versus GRPR tonic ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
 Versus GRPR phasic ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
 Versus GRPR gap ∗∗∗
 Versus GRPR initial bursting ∗∗∗
GRPR tonic (n = 19) −70.2 ± 0.9 44.8 ± 3.7 1197 ± 92 8.21 ± 1.59 −43.8 ± 1.2 78.4 ± 1.5 2.22 ± 0.10 −28.5 ± 1.7
 Versus GRPR phasic ∗∗ ∗∗
 Versus GRPR gap
 Versus GRPR initial bursting
GRPR phasic (n = 7) −77.5 ± 2.8 35.6 ± 6.5 650 ± 160 28.3 ± 5.1 −47.4 ± 1.3 75.2 ± 3.2 1.83 ± 0.15 −23.8 ± 3.0
 Versus GRPR gap ∗∗∗
 Versus GRPR initial bursting ∗∗
GRPR gap (n = 6) −71.0 ± 2.2 48.5 ± 8.7 1001 ± 119 20.0 ± 3.6 −41.8 ± 1.0 80.6 ± 1.5 1.98 ± 0.15 −37.1 ± 2.0
 Versus GRPR initial bursting
GRPR initial bursting (n = 6) −70.4 ± 1.8 43.4 ± 4.2 990 ± 127 20.17 ± 3.6 −39.7 ± 1.5 62.0 ± 7.5 2.85 ± 0.26 −27.9 ± 3.3

RMP, resting membrane potential, Cm, membrane capacitance, Rinput, input resistance, AHP, afterhyperpolarization. Values are means ± SEM. One-way ANOVA followed by a Bonferroni post hoc test. p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, ∗∗∗p < 0.001. F(5,116) = 9.24 (RMP); 1.23 (Cm); 162 (Ri); 11.85 (rheobase); 10.6 (AP threshold); 2.622 (action potential amplitude); 40.08 (action potential width); 3.90 (afterhyperpolarization).

a

Determined at the action potential base.