Skip to main content
. 2007 Aug 1;27(31):8430–8441. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1787-07.2007

Table 1.

Best-fit parameters obtained for different granule cells

Rm (kΩ cm2) CV (%) Cm (μF cm−2) CV (%) Ri (Ω cm) CV (%) Surface area (1000 μm2) Number of spines
Cell 1 39.3 3.1 0.89 1.1 225 0.4 12.1 4933
Cell 2 41.7 3.8 0.96 1.0 198 1.5 17.6 6830
Cell 3 44.9 7.6 0.90 3.3 93 2.2 14.0 6089
Cell 4 44.7 4.3 1.05 1.0 218 0.9 11.8 4494
Cell 5a 24.9 4.0 1.06 0.9 140 1.4 14.4 5942
Cell 6a 36.1 2.5 1.10 2.7 320 3.1 10.1 3091
Cell 7a 36.4 3.0 1.00 1.0 163 1.2 15.8 5797
Cell 8 35.8 1.1 1.14 1.8 191 4.2 10.9 4925
Mean ± SEM 38.0 ± 2.3 3.7 1.01 ± 0.03 1.6 194 ± 24 1.9 13.3 ± 0.9 5262 ± 410

The electrophysiological data were obtained with double recordings from the soma except for cell 8, for which somatodendritic double recordings were used. Stochastic error attributable to recording noise was assessed using a bootstrap method, and variability of best-fit parameter values is given by the CV. Surface area includes somatic, dendritic, axonal, and spine membrane.

aCells with a long reconstructed axon reaching the CA3 area.