Fig. 5

Regulation of GluA1 subunit expression in the postsynaptic membrane of ciIPN neurons by α7 nAChR (A and B) Comparison of time to peak and half-decay time of AMPAR-mEPSCs recorded from winners without drugs (using the same dataset as shown for winners in Figures 4H and 4I) and Nic (5 μM) or PHA (1 μM) treated winners (Nic, n = 6 cells from 3 animals; PHA, n = 8 cells from 3 animals) (A), and data distributions of these groups (B). Examples of averaged AMPAR-mEPSCs recorded from a single cell are shown on the top (from left to right: without drugs, Nic, and PHA). Scale bar, 2 ms. (C and D) Inhibition of Nic effect by MLA (50 nM), SR (20 μM), and DHβE (10 μM) in winner (Nic, using the same dataset as shown with Nic in A; Nic + MLA, n = 11 cells from 2 animals; Nic + SR, n = 5 cells from 3 animals; Nic + DHβE, n = 5 cells from 3 animals) (C), and data distributions of these groups (D). Examples of averaged AMPAR-mEPSCs recorded from a single cell are shown on the top (from left to right: without an antagonist, MLA, SR, and DHβE). Scale bar, 2 ms. (E and F) Comparison of time to peak and half-decay time of AMPAR-mEPSCs recorded from losers between those without drugs (using the same dataset as shown for the loser in Figures 4H and 4I) and those with MLA treatment (MLA, n = 4 cells from 2 animals) (E), and data distributions of these groups (F). Examples of averaged AMPAR-mEPSCs recorded from a single cell are shown on the top (without drugs, left; MLA, right). Scale bar, 2 ms. Values are presented as mean ± SEM. Statistical significance was defined as ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗∗∗p < 0.001. See also Figure S1.