Table 1.
Electrophysiological properties of wild-type and weaver granule cells
| Cm(pF) | gleak(nS) | gleak/Cm (nS/pF) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wild-type | a (n = 8) | 3.5 ± 1.6 | 0.54 ± 0.18 | 0.15 |
| b (n = 6) | 4.5 ± 0.9 | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.07 | |
| c1 (n = 7) | 3.1 ± 1.1 | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.1 | |
| c2 (n = 7) | 2.9 ± 0.9 | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 0.21 | |
| Weaver | awv (n = 8) | 2.9 ± 0.5 | 0.5 ± 0.3 | 0.17 |
| bwv (n = 9) | 4.6 ± 0.3 | 0.6 ± 0.4 | 0.13 | |
| cwv (n = 6) | 7.9 ± 2.5* | 1.2 ± 1.1* | 0.15 |
Electrophysiological properties of the different granule cell categories used in this paper (for definition, see Fig. 1A). Input membrane capacitance (Cm) has been estimated from passive current transients generated in the voltage-clamp mode just after the whole-cell configuration was established. Leakage conductance, gleak, has been estimated as the slope of the I–V plots at potentials lower than −40 mV (in c2 and cwv,gleak was estimated after the inward rectifier current was blocked pharmacologically). Both Cmand gleak were significantly greater in putative weaver granule cells in a deep position than in the other groups (*p < 0.05). Thegleak/Cm ratio, however, was similar.