Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleResearch Article: New Research, Sensory and Motor Systems

Synaptic Drive onto Inhibitory and Excitatory Principal Neurons of the Mouse Lateral Superior Olive

Hariprakash Haragopal, Mara J. Voytek and Bradley D. Winters
eNeuro 25 April 2025, 12 (5) ENEURO.0106-25.2025; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0106-25.2025
Hariprakash Haragopal
1Department of Biological Sciences and University Hospitals – NEOMED Hearing Research Center, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, Ohio, 44272
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mara J. Voytek
1Department of Biological Sciences and University Hospitals – NEOMED Hearing Research Center, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, Ohio, 44272
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bradley D. Winters
1Department of Biological Sciences and University Hospitals – NEOMED Hearing Research Center, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, Ohio, 44272
2Brain Health Research Institute, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, 44242
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Bradley D. Winters
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Spontaneous excitatory postsynaptic currents (sEPSCs) are larger in inhibitory LSO PNs. A, Example traces from 3 vGlut2 positive (excitatory) LSO PNs. B, Example traces from 3 vGlut2 negative (inhibitory) LSO PNs. C, Cumulative probability of sEPSC amplitudes. D, Amplitude of sEPSCs. E, Frequency of sEPSCs. F, sEPSC 20 to 80% rise time. G, sEPSC halfwidths. H, sEPSC decay tau (time constant). Cells (animals) E: n = 14(8), I: n = 15(12). Mean ± SEM. *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Evoked EPSCs (eEPSCs) exhibit similar amplitude, kinetics, and short-term plasticity in LSO PN types. A, Example eEPSC traces at minimal stimulation from 3 vGlut2+ (left, excitatory) and 3 vGlut2− (right, inhibitory) LSO PNs. B, Minimal eEPSC amplitude (all left and at expanded scale right). C, Minimal eEPSC 20–80% rise time. D, Minimal eEPSC halfwidth. E, Minimal eEPSC decay tau. B–E, Cell (animals) E: n = 14(10), I: n = 19(14). F, Example eEPSC traces for a pair of stimulations at minimal stimulation intensity with 5 ms interpulse interval (IPI) from 3 vGlut2+ (left traces) and 3 vGlut2− (right traces) LSO PNs. Scale is the same for all traces. Paired-pulse ratio (right). Open diamonds in graph are cells with p < 0.05 in bootstrap test for individual LSO PN's mean paired-pulse ratios. E: n = 5(5), I: n = 11(10). G, Same as F, for 10 ms IPI. E: n = 6(5), I: n = 13(11). H, 20 ms IPI. E: n = 8(7), I: n = 9(9). Mean ± SEM.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    LSO PN types receive similar numbers of excitatory inputs. A, Example eEPSC amplitudes plotted against stimulation intensities for an excitatory LSO PN. Overlaid response traces shown in inset. Responses saturated at 1 mA. The number of inputs for the neuron was estimated as the number of peaks in a GMM fit to the histograms binned at 36 pA (solid line overlaying histogram), « symbols indicate the local maxima of the fit. B, Same as in A, but for an inhibitory LSO PN. C, The estimated number of inputs. E: n = 8(8), I: n = 6(6). D, Maximal amplitudes, measured as the largest amplitude at which the GMM fit had a peak. One cell that had a single estimated input but <100 pA amplitude was discarded from maximal stimulation analyses. E: n = 7(7), I: n = 6(6). Mean ± SEM.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Spontaneous inhibitory postsynaptic currents (sIPSCs) have larger amplitudes and slower decay kinetics in inhibitory LSO PNs. A, Example traces from 3 vGlut2 positive (excitatory) LSO PNs. High Cl− internal used. B, Example traces from 3 vGlut2 negative (inhibitory) LSO PNs. C, Cumulative probability of sIPSC amplitudes. D, Amplitude of sIPSCs. E, Frequency of sIPSCs. F, sIPSC 20 to 80% rise time. G, sIPSC halfwidths. H, sIPSC decay tau (time constant). Cells (animals) E: n = 20(15), I: n = 15(11). Mean ± SEM. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Evoked IPSCs (eIPSCs) exhibit slower decay kinetics in inhibitory LSO PNs but similar amplitudes and short-term plasticity between LSO PN types. A, Example eIPSC traces at minimal stimulation from 3 vGlut2+ (left, excitatory) and 3 vGlut2− (right, inhibitory) LSO PNs. B, Minimal eIPSC amplitude (all left and at expanded scale right). C, Minimal eIPSC 20–80% rise time. D, Minimal eIPSC halfwidth. E, Minimal eIPSC decay tau. B–E, Cell(animals) E: n = 20(15), I: n = 13(10). F, Example eIPSC traces for a pair of stimulations at minimal stimulation intensity with 5-ms interpulse interval (IPI) from 3 vGlut2+ (left traces) and 3 vGlut2− (right traces) LSO PNs. Scale is the same for all traces. Paired-pulse ratio (right). Open diamonds in graph are cells with p < 0.05 in bootstrap test for individual LSO PN's mean paired-pulse ratios. E: n = 8(8), I: n = 4(4). G, Same as F, for 10 ms IPI. E: n = 11(8), I: n = 5(5). H, 20 ms IPI. E: n = 13(10), I: n = 8(8). Mean ± SEM. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    LSO PN types receive similar numbers of inhibitory inputs. A, Example eIPSC amplitudes plotted against stimulation intensities for an excitatory LSO PN. Overlaid response traces shown in inset. Responses saturated at 10 mA. The number of inputs for the neuron was estimated as the number of peaks in a GMM fit to the histograms binned at 93 pA (solid line overlaying histogram), « symbols indicate the local maxima of the fit. B, Same as in A, but for an inhibitory LSO PN. Responses saturated at 1 mA. C, The estimated number of inputs. D, Maximal amplitudes, measured as the largest amplitude at which GMM fit had a peak. E: n = 7(6), I: n = 10(7). Mean ± SEM.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 12 (5)
eNeuro
Vol. 12, Issue 5
May 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Synaptic Drive onto Inhibitory and Excitatory Principal Neurons of the Mouse Lateral Superior Olive
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Synaptic Drive onto Inhibitory and Excitatory Principal Neurons of the Mouse Lateral Superior Olive
Hariprakash Haragopal, Mara J. Voytek, Bradley D. Winters
eNeuro 25 April 2025, 12 (5) ENEURO.0106-25.2025; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0106-25.2025

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Synaptic Drive onto Inhibitory and Excitatory Principal Neurons of the Mouse Lateral Superior Olive
Hariprakash Haragopal, Mara J. Voytek, Bradley D. Winters
eNeuro 25 April 2025, 12 (5) ENEURO.0106-25.2025; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0106-25.2025
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
    • Author Response
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • auditory
  • brainstem
  • lateral superior olive
  • sound localization

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Article: New Research

  • Release of extracellular matrix components after human traumatic brain injury
  • Action intentions reactivate representations of task-relevant cognitive cues
  • Functional connectome correlates of laterality preferences: Insights into Hand, Foot, and Eye Dominance Across the Lifespan
Show more Research Article: New Research

Sensory and Motor Systems

  • Action intentions reactivate representations of task-relevant cognitive cues
  • Interference underlies attenuation upon relearning in sensorimotor adaptation
  • Rod Inputs Arrive at Horizontal Cell Somas in Mouse Retina Solely via Rod–Cone Coupling
Show more Sensory and Motor Systems

Subjects

  • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.