Skip to main content
Fig. 8 | Molecular Brain

Fig. 8

From: Rapid and stable changes in maturation-related phenotypes of the adult hippocampal neurons by electroconvulsive treatment

Fig. 8

Enhanced synaptic activation in GCs after repeated ECS. a, Left: A diagram showing the electrode arrangement for recording GC population spikes (PSs) evoked by MPP stimulation. Right: Sample recordings of PSs evoked at three different intensities. Scale bars: 10 ms, 1 mV. b, Left: The relationship between field EPSP slope and PS amplitude recorded in the GC layer after three times of ECS. Right: X-intercepts of linear regression lines were measured to determine the threshold EPSP slope for evoking PS. (t (13) = 3.356, ** P = 0.0052, Student’s t-test with Welch’s correction, n represents the number of slices). c, Threshold EPSP slope for evoking PS in absence and presence of picrotoxin (100 μM, PTX) in the same slices after three times of ECS. A significant difference between CNT and ECS was observed only in the absence of PTX (Bonferroni’s test following two-way repeated measure ANOVA; Saline, ** P < 0.01, interaction [drug treatment × ECS]; F (1,17) = 8.14, P = 0.011, n represents the number of slices). d, Left: A diagram showing the electrode arrangement for recording evoked postsynaptic currents. Center: EPSCs and monosynaptic IPSCs recorded in the same GCs. Scale bars: 20 ms, 100 pA. Right: Reduced IPSC/EPSC ratios after three times of ECS (t (27) = 3.375, ** P = 0.0023, n represents the number of cells). e, Threshold EPSP slopes for evoking PS at 14 days after 11 times of ECS (t (13) = 2.543, * P = 0.0245, n represents number of slices). f, Effect of CPP (1 or 5 treatments at 20 mg/kg) injected after each ECS as indicated on frequency facilitation at 14 days after 11 times of ECS (1 treatment: t (11) = 2.73, * P = 0.0196, 5 treatments: t (8) = 4.293, ** P = 0.0026). The number (n) is shown in the graph. Data are presented as means ± SEM

Back to article page