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, Neuronal Excitability

GnRH Neuron Excitability and Action Potential Properties Change with Development But Are Not Affected by Prenatal Androgen Exposure

Jennifer Jaime and Suzanne M. Moenter
eNeuro 29 November 2022, 9 (6) ENEURO.0362-22.2022; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0362-22.2022
Jennifer Jaime
1The Neuroscience Graduate Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jennifer Jaime
Suzanne M. Moenter
1The Neuroscience Graduate Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
2Departments of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
3Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
4Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
5The Reproductive Sciences Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Suzanne M. Moenter
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

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

    Confirmation of PNA phenotype. A–C, Individual values and mean ± SEM for age of vaginal opening (VO; A), body mass at VO (B), and adult anogenital distance (AGD, mm; C). D, Representative estrous cycles over 14 d. P, proestrus; D, diestrus; E, estrus. E, Individual values and mean ± SEM days in each cycle stage over 14 d. Statistical parameters are in Table 1; ***p < 0.005, ****p < 0.0001.

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

    Recording quality parameters. A–D, Individual values and mean ± SEM for compensated series resistance (A), capacitance (B), input resistance (C), holding current (D). Statistical parameters are in Table 2.

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

    GnRH neuron excitability is increased, and action potential properties altered, in adult versus three-week-old mice. A, Representative membrane voltage responses (top) to depolarizing current injections (bottom); only three current steps are shown for clarity. B, Mean ± SEM # of action potentials (APs) fired as a function of current injection in age-combined groups. C, representative traces of the rheobase AP for each experimental group. D–K, Individual values and mean ± SEM for AP threshold (D), latency (E), rate of rise (F), AP amplitude (G), full width at half-maximum (FWHM; H), rheobase (I), afterhyperpolarization potential (AHP) time (J), and AHP amplitude (K). Statistical parameters are in Tables 3 and 4.

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

    Neither development nor PNA treatment alter the response of GnRH neurons to hyperpolarizing current. A, Representative membrane voltage (top) responses to hyperpolarizing current injections (bottom); only three steps are shown for clarity. Individual values ± SEM for sag (B), and GnRH neuron rebound following the hyperpolarizing current relative to baseline membrane potential (C). Statistical parameters shown in Table 5.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Descriptive statistics and statistical parameters characterizing the PNA phenotype (Fig. 1)

    Mean ± SEM for age at VO, body mass at VO and AGD
    PropertyVEHPNA
    Age at vaginal opening (d)31.7 ± 0.527.6 ± 0.7
    Body mass (g) at vaginal opening13.8 ± 0.312.1 ± 0.4
    AGD (mm)4.9 ± 0.15.7 ± 0.1
    PropertyUnpaired, two-tailed Student’s t testMean difference (PNA-VEH)Effect size r2
    Age at vaginal opening (d)t(4.986), df = 34; p < 0.0001Diff [Cl, −5.824, −2.451]
    −4.138 ± 0.8299
    r2 = 0.4223
    AGD (mm)t(5.124), df = 23; p < 0.0001Diff [Cl, 0.8206, 0.1601]
    0.8206 ± 0.160
    r2 = 0.5331
    PropertyMann–Whitney U testTwo-tailed p-value
    Body mass (g) at vaginal openingU = 55p = 0.0006
    Mean ± SEM days per estrous cycle stage
    Cycle stageVEHPNA
    Estrus5.2 ± 0.34.5 ± 0.7
    Diestrus6.4 ± 0.39.2 ± 0.8
    Proestrus2.4 ± 0.20.1 ± 0.1
    Propertyχ2 test
    Estrous cycle stage distributionχ2 = 36.1672, n = 425, df= 2, p = 0.000000014
    EstrusDiestrusProestrus
    Std. residual0.35780123.7716655.7238930
    Fisher’s exact test; Bonferroni adjustedp = 1.0p = 0.000573p < 0.00005
    • Bold indicates p < 0.05.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Descriptive statistics and statistical parameters from two-way ANOVA for recording quality parameters and passive properties (Fig. 2)

    Descriptive statistics (mean ± SEM)
    Property3-week controls3-week PNAAdult controlsAdult PNA
    Series resistance (MΩ)12.2 ± 0.812.259 ± 0.813.0 ± 0.812.841 ± 0.729
    Capacitance (pF)11.9 ± 0.911.8 ± 0.612.5 ± 0.913.654 ± 0.651
    Input resistance (MΩ)648.6 ± 30.2710.3 ± 39.3858.6 ± 53.4775.946 ± 41.81
    Holding current (pA)−63.9 ± 5.8−61.6 ± 4.6−48.2 ± 5.3−48.456 ± 3.820
    Two-way ANOVA
    PropertyAgeTreatmentInteraction
    Series resistance (MΩ)Diff, −0.7058
    [Cl, −2.250, 0.8387]
    F(1,60) = 0.8356; p = 0.3643
    Diff, 0.04112
    [Cl, −1.503, 1.586]
    F(1,60) = 0.002837; p = 0.9577
    Diff, −0.2489
    [Cl, −2.840, 3.338]
    F(1,60) = 0.02597; p = 0.8725
    Capacitance (pF)Diff, −1.220
    [Cl, −2.750, 0.3089]
    F(1,60) = 2.548; p = 0.3906
    Diff, −0.5158,
    [Cl, −2.045, 1.014]
    F(1,60) = 0.4551; p = 0.5025
    Diff, 1.322
    [Cl, −4.381, 1.736]
    F(1,60) = 0.7478; p = 0.5025
    Input resistance (MΩ)Diff, −137.8
    [Cl, −221.8, −53.87]
    F(1,60) = 10.78; p = 0.0017
    Diff, 10.43
    [Cl, −73.53, 94.39]
    F(1,60) = 0.06174, p = 0.8046
    Diff, −144.4
    [Cl, −312.3, 23.56]
    F(1,60) = 2.957; p = 0.0907
    Bonferroni3-week VEH
    vs 3-week PNA
    3-week VEH
    vs adult VEH
    3-week PNA
    vs adult PNA
    Adult VEH
    vs adult PNA
    p > 0.9999p = 0.0065p ≥ 0.9999p > 0.9999
    Holding current (pA)Diff, −14.42
    [Cl, −24.17, −4.658]
    F(1,60) = 8.732; p = 0.0045
    Diff, −0.9966
    [Cl, −10.75, 8.761]
    F(1,60) = 0.04174; p = 0.8388
    Diff, −2.608
    [Cl, −22.12, 16.91]
    F(1,60) = 0.07146; p = 0.7901
    Bonferroni3-week VEH
    vs 3-week PNA
    3-week VEH
    vs adult VEH
    3-week PNA
    vs adult PNA
    Adult VEH
    vs adult PNA
    p > 0.9999p = 0.1846p = 0.3271p > 0.9999
    • Bold indicates p < 0.05.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Descriptive statistics and statistical parameters from three-way repeated-measures ANOVA for GnRH neuron excitability (Fig. 3)

    Descriptive statistics number of APs (mean ± SEM)
    Current (pA)3-week controls3-week PNAAdult controlsAdult PNA
    00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
    50.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0
    100.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.2 ± 0.120.1 ± 013
    150.1 ± 0.140.2 ± 0.151.1 ± 0.500.7 ± 0.30
    200.8 ± 0.350.8 ± 0.402.3 ± 0.752.0 ± 0.56
    252.3 ± 0.701.8 ± 0.564.3 ± 1.093.8 ± 0.71
    303.6 ± 0.844.0 ± 0.576.2 ± 1.365.6 ± 0.88
    355.9 ± 1.106.1 ± 0.638.0 ± 1.457.2 ± 0.90
    407.7 ± 1.007.8 ± 0.689.7 ± 1.518.8 ± 0.94
    Three-way repeated-measures ANOVATwo-way (age)Two-way (treatment)
    Current (pA)F(8,408) = 176.9; p < 0.0001F(1.341,71.06) = 183.1; p < 0.0001F(1.348,71.46) = 173.9; p < 0.0001
    AgeF(1,51) = 4.515; p = 0.0385F(1,53) = 4.478; p = 0.0391
    TreatmentF(1,51) = 0.1273; p = 0.7227F(1,53) = 0.02802; p = 0.8677
    Current × ageF(8,408) = 2.977; p = 0.0030F(8,424) = 2.974; p = 0.0030
    Current × treatmentF(8,408) = 0.120; p = 0.9984F(8,424) = 0.06764; p = 0.9998
    Age × treatmentF(1,51) = 0.1738; p = 0.1738
    Current × age × treatmentF(8,408) = 0.228; p = 0.9857
    Bonferroni of age-consolidated dataThree weeks (CON and PNA) vs adult (CON and PNA)
    0, 5, 10, 15 pAp > 0.9999
    20 pAp = 0.3820
    25 pAp = 0.0302
    30 pAp = 0.0169
    35 pAp = 0.1481
    40 pAp = 0.3349
    • Bold indicates p < 0.05.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Descriptive statistics for action potential properties (Fig. 3)

    Descriptive statistics (mean ± SEM)
    Property3-week controls3-week PNAAdult controlsAdult PNA
    Threshold (mV)−43.8 ± 1.31−44.8 ± 1.24−42.2 ± 1.17−43.2 ± 0.95
    Latency (s)0.2 ± 0.110.2 ± 0.100.3 ± 0.120.3 ± 0.10
    Amplitude (mV)87.5 ± 0.8488.4 ± 1.2885.7 ± 1.4686.7 ± 1.05
    FWHM (ms)0.8 ± 0.040.8 ± 0.020.8 ± 0.040.8 ± 0.03
    Rate of rise (mV/ms)0.4 ± 0.010.4 ± 0.020.4 ± 0.020.5 ± 0.01
    Rheobase (mV)27.5 ± 2.1525.0 ± 1.6021.7 ± 2.4121.9 ± 1.57
    AHP amplitude (mV)−22.6 ± 0.85−24.3 ± 1.02−24.8 ± 1.15−25.8 ± 0.68
    AHP time (ms)3.6 ± 0.314.1 ± 0.264.5 ± 0.524.8 ± 0.36
    • View popup
    Table 5

    Two-way ANOVA parameters for action potential properties (Fig. 3)

    PropertyAgeTreatmentInteraction
    Threshold (mV)Diff, 1.170
    [Cl, −3.918, 0.7768]
    F(1,52) = 1.803; p = 0.1852
    Diff, 0.9859
    [Cl, −1.361, 3.333]
    F(1,52) = 0.7103; p = 0.4032
    Diff, −0.01028
    [Cl, −4.705, 4.684]
    F(1,52) = 1.932e-005; p = 0.9965
    Latency (s)Diff, −0.05101
    [Cl, −0.1089, 0.006901]
    F(1,51) = 0.3.127; p = 0.0.0830
    Diff, 0.003030
    [Cl, −0.05489, 0.06095]
    F(1,51) = 0.0.01103; p = 0.9168
    Diff, −0.05693
    [Cl, −0.1728, 0.05890]
    F(1,51) = 0.9735; p = 0.3285
    Amplitude (mV)Diff, 1.731
    [Cl, −0.5921, 4.055]
    F(1,51) = 2.238; p = 0.1408
    Diff, −0.9231
    [Cl, −3.247, 1.400]
    F(1,51) = 0.0.6361; p = 0.4288
    Diff, 0.002851
    [Cl, −4.650,4.644]
    F(1,51) = 1.517e006; p = 0.9990
    FWHM (ms)Diff, 0.02731
    [Cl, −0.03989, 0.09454]
    F(1,51) = 0.6660; p = 0.4183
    Diff, −0.01879
    [Cl, −0.8601, 0.04843]
    F(1,51) = 0.3149; p = 0.5771
    Diff, 0.05826
    [Cl, −0.07618, 0.1927]
    F(1,51) = 0.7568; p = 0.3884
    Rate of rise (mV/ms)Diff, −0.01261
    [Cl, −0.04178, 0.01657]
    F(1,51) = 0.7524; p = 0.3898
    Diff, 0.01453
    [Cl, −0.04740, 0.01095]
    F(1,51) = 0.2155; p = 0.2155
    Diff, −0.0002991
    [Cl, −0.05865, 0.05805]
    F(1,51) = 0.0001059; p = 0.9918
    Rheobase (pA)Diff, 4.479
    [Cl, 0.5934, 8.365]
    F(1,51) = 5.355; p = 0.0247
    Diff, 1.146
    [Cl, −2.740, 5.032]
    F(1,51) = 0.3505; p = 0.5565
    Diff, 2.708
    [Cl, −5.063, 10.48]
    F(1,51) = 0.4895; p = 0.4873
    Bonferroni3-week VEH
    vs 3-week PNA
    3-week VEH
    vs adult VEH
    3-week PNA
    vs adult PNA
    Adult VEH
    vs adult PNA
    p > 0.9999p = 0.2568p > 0.9999p > 0.9999
    AHP amplitude (mV)Diff, 1.827
    [Cl, −0.01161, 3.666]
    F(1,51) = 3.980; p = 0.0514
    Diff, 1.369
    [Cl, −0.4701, 3.208]
    F(1,51) = 2.233; p = 0.1412
    Diff, 0.7832
    [Cl, −2.895, 4.461]
    F(1,51) = 0.1827; p = 0.6708
    Bonferroni3-week VEH
    vs 3-week PNA
    3-week VEH
    vs adult VEH
    3-week PNA
    vs adult PNA
    Adult VEH
    vs adult PNA
    p > 0.9999p = 0.6064p > 0.9999p > 0.9999
    AHP time (ms)Diff, −0.7990
    [Cl, −1.538, −0.05992]
    F(1,51) = 4.710; p = 0.0347
    Diff, −0.3644
    [Cl, −1.103, 0.3747]
    F(1,51) = 0.9797; p = 0.3270
    Diff, −0.1663
    [Cl, −1.644, 1.312]
    F(1,51) = 0.05100; p = 0.8222
    Bonferroni3-week VEH
    vs 3-week PNA
    3-week VEH
    vs adult VEH
    3-week PNA
    vs adult PNA
    Adult VEH
    vs adult PNA
    p > 0.9999p = 0.6283p = 0.9836p > 0.9999
    • Bold indicates p < 0.05.

    • View popup
    Table 6

    Mean ± SEM and two-way ANOVA parameters for GnRH neurons hyperpolarized between −90 and −95 mV (Fig. 4)

    Current (pA) needed to hyperpolarize the cell to −90 to −95 mV
    VEH 3 weeksPNA 3 weeksVEH adultPNA adult
    −37.3 ± 1.95−35.0 ± 1.78−31.0 ± 2.67−31.5 ± 1.73
    Steady-state to sag-peak membrane potential difference
    VEH 3 weeksPNA 3 weeksVEH adultPNA adult
    0.2 ± 0.120.04 ± 0.20−0.01 ± 0.150.3 ± 0.26
    Repolarization to basal membrane potential difference
    VEH 3 weeksPNA 3 weeksVEH adultPNA adult
    0.3 ± 0.260.3 ± 0.48−0.1 ± 0.260.5 ± 0.32
    Two-way ANOVA
    PropertyAgeTreatmentInteraction
    Current (pA) needed to
    hyperpolarizethe cell to
    −90 to −95 mV
    Diff, −4.867
    [Cl, −8.960, −0.7745]
    F(1,41) = 5.768; p = 0.0209
    Diff, −0.8671
    [Cl, −4.960, 3.225]
    F(1,41) = 0.1831;
    p = 0.6710
    Diff, −2.811
    [Cl, −11.0, 21.915.374
    F(1,41) = 0.4811; p = 0.4918
    Bonferroni3-week VEH
    vs 3-week PNA
    3-week VEH
    vs adult VEH
    3-week PNA
    vs adult PNA
    Adult VEH
    vs adult PNA
    p > 0.9999p = 0.2398p > 0.9999p > 0.9999
    Steady-state to sag-peak
    potential difference
    Diff, −0.04333
    [Cl, −0.4615,
    0.3748]
    F(1,41) = 0.04380;
    p = 0.8353
    Diff, −0.09561
    [Cl, −0.5138, 0.00928503226]
    F(1,41) = 0.2132;
    p = 0.6467
    Diff, 0.4902
    [Cl, −0.3461,
    1.327]
    F(1,41) = 1.401;
    p = 0.2433
    Repolarization to basal
    potential difference
    Diff, 0.09892
    [Cl, −0.5909, 0.7887]
    F(1,41) = 0.08386;
    p = 0.7736
    Diff, −0.3164
    [Cl, −1.006, 0.3735]
    F(1,41) = 0.8579;
    p = 0.3597
    Diff, 0.7403
    [Cl, −0.6393, 2.120]
    F(1,41) = 1.174;
    p = 0.2848
    • Bold indicates p < 0.05.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 9 (6)
eNeuro
Vol. 9, Issue 6
November/December 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (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.
GnRH Neuron Excitability and Action Potential Properties Change with Development But Are Not Affected by Prenatal Androgen Exposure
(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
GnRH Neuron Excitability and Action Potential Properties Change with Development But Are Not Affected by Prenatal Androgen Exposure
Jennifer Jaime, Suzanne M. Moenter
eNeuro 29 November 2022, 9 (6) ENEURO.0362-22.2022; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0362-22.2022

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
GnRH Neuron Excitability and Action Potential Properties Change with Development But Are Not Affected by Prenatal Androgen Exposure
Jennifer Jaime, Suzanne M. Moenter
eNeuro 29 November 2022, 9 (6) ENEURO.0362-22.2022; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0362-22.2022
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
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
    • Author Response
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • development
  • electrophysiology
  • GnRH neurons
  • intrinsic properties
  • prenatal androgenization

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

  • Robust representation and nonlinear spectral integration of harmonic stacks in layer 4 of mouse primary auditory cortex
  • Changes in palatability processing across the estrous cycle are modulated by hypothalamic estradiol signaling
  • Automatic, but not autonomous: Implicit adaptation is modulated by goal-directed attentional demands
Show more Research Article: New Research

Neuronal Excitability

  • Galanin Inhibits Histaminergic Neurons via Galanin Receptor 1
  • The Neurexin1β Histidine-Rich Domain Is Involved in Excitatory Presynaptic Organization and Short-Term Plasticity
  • Fast Spiking Interneurons Autonomously Generate Fast Gamma Oscillations in the Medial Entorhinal Cortex with Excitation Strength Tuning ING–PING Transitions
Show more Neuronal Excitability

Subjects

  • Neuronal Excitability
  • 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 © 2026 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.