Skip to main content
. 2021 Jan 11;14:603419. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2020.603419

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Comparison of WT and Trpv1−/− αOFF-sustained RGCs. (A) WT αOFF-S RGC following intracellular filling (AL555) and labeled for SMI-32 shows dendrites ramifying narrowly in the OFF region of the IPL proximal to ChAT labeling (inset). (B) The voltage response of WT αOFF-S RGC increases and is sustained at the light offset, while excitation diminishes during light stimulation (dashed line). (C) Trpv1−/− αOFF-S RGC has similar morphology and response to light offset, though less robust than WT (D). When averaged across cells (E,F), the mean response of Trpv1−/− αOFF-S RGCs to light offset was less than WT (9.5 ± 0.6 vs. 15.3 ± 0.8 spikes/s; *p < 0.001), though the RMP was slightly more depolarized (−54.3 ± 0.8 vs. −56.0 ± 0.6 mV; p = 0.07). (G,H) For WT αOFF-S RGCs (n = 5), bath application of IRTX (100 nM) reduced the mean response histogram to light offset (−34%; *p < 0.001), though peak off response and RMP were not affected (p ≥ 0.14). WT control group consists of 10 cells from naïve eyes and 24 cells from saline-injected eyes. (A,C) Scale = 40 μm. Statistics: Mann–Whitney tests (F) and paired t-tests (H). Data = mean ± SEM.