Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Cntnap2 mice show altered in vivo spontaneous activity of PCs. A, Schematic illustration of an extracellular PC recording and a representative trace displaying SSs and CSs. B, CS firing rate, MD −0.259 [95.0% CI −0.426, −0.0951], Student’s t test p = 0.0054. C, SS firing rate, MD 3.68 [95% CI −8.55, 19.0], Student’s t test p = 0.656. D, SS predominant firing rate, MD 14.7 [95.0% CI −15.4, 37.9], Student’s t test p = 0.31. E, CV of the interspike intervals for SS, MD 0.138 [95.0% CI 0.0422, 0.266], Student’s t test p = 0.0242. F, CV for adjacent interspike intervals (CV2), MD 0.0439 [95.0% CI −0.0117, 0.103], Student’s t test p = 0.153. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. N = 14 WT, 15 KO neurons. MD = mean difference (KO-WT); CI, confidence interval; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
- Figure 2.
Altered cerebellar LFP after electrical stimulation of the whisker pad in Cntnap2 KOs. A, Schematic illustration representing the LFP recording. B, Event-related potential analysis comparing the average SEP traces for nine KO (red trace) and six WT (black trace) mice. Vertical pink bars indicate statistically different latencies, corresponding to the cortical peak (C) in WT at 12.87 ± 0.40 ms, which is absent in KOs, who show a statistically significant novel negative peak, presumably an anticipated cortical response, at 6.46 ± 0.14 ms. Student’s t test (p < 0.05). C, Temporal firing pattern for SS (left) and CS (right) in WT (N = 6 neurons, black) and KO (N = 10 neurons, red) mice after electrical stimulation. Note that CS appear at poststimulation latencies concordant with the C component in WT, while they appear earlier in KO mice, likely indicating an anticipated C response at 6 ms. Two-way ANOVA, Holm–Sidak test for multiple comparisons (p < 0.0001). The graphs represent the mean ± SEM (discontinuous or shaded lines).
- Figure 3.
Increased intrinsic excitability of PCs in Cntnap2 KOs. A, Representative AP from WT and KO mice. No significant differences were found in passive membrane properties between WT and KO PC. Resting potential MD 0.6720 [95.0% CI −3.7, 5.15], Student’s t test p = 0.778. Input resistance MD 0.263 [95.0% CI −25.5, 20.1], Student’s t test p = 0.986. Capacitance MD −13.22 [95.0% CI −76.5, 46.7], Student’s t test p = 0.691. B, AP threshold MD −2.180 [95.0% CI −8.12, 3.88], Student’s t test p = 0.499. C, Rheobase MD −205 [95.0% CI −382, −36.4], Student’s t test p = 0.034. D, Intrinsic excitability as a measurement of firing frequency on current step increases (left) and individual slopes of the frequency/intensity lines (right). Two-way ANOVA mixed effect (interaction genotype × current p = 0.03), slopes MD 0.0679 [95.0% CI 0.00631, 0.163], Student’s t test p = 0.12. All data are presented as mean ± SEM. N = 11 WT, 13 KO neurons. MD = mean difference (KO-WT); CI, confidence interval; *p < 0.05. Membrane potentials are not corrected for the liquid junction potential between intra and external solution (−12.7 mV).
- Figure 4.
Reduced arborization of PCs in Cntnap2 KOs. A, Representation of Sholl analysis applied to a PC. B, PC length from soma to the most apical point, MD −61.89 [95.0% CI −89.6, −35.7], Student’s t test p = 0.0002. N = 14 WT, 15 KO. C, Number of intersections as a function of their distance from the soma. Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures. N = 11 WT, 16 KO. D, Spine density MD 0.246 [95.0% CI −0.0533, 0.532], Student’s t test p = 0.117. N = 20 WT, 18 KO. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. MD = mean difference (KO-WT); CI, confidence interval; **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
In this issue
