Fig. 6

Bai3-induced re-innervation by CFs requires PC activity

A Experimental scheme. The right panel shows three cases: in all cases recorded PCs overexpress Bai3, but all PCs are active (spiking PCs, left), all PCs are silenced by ESKir2.1 (silent PCs, middle) and recorded PCs are active but neighboring PCs are silenced (right). B Representative action potentials by loose-patch recordings (upper traces) and CF-EPSCs by whole-cell patch-clamp recordings (lower traces) from PCs expressing the indicated constructs. C Total CF-EPSC amplitude. The graph shows the sum of peak amplitudes of single CF-EPSCs or multiple CF-EPSCs. p = 0.0098, CTRL + Bai3 vs. ESKir2.1 + Bai3; p = 0.9500, CTRL + Bai3 vs. ESKir2.1 + Bai3, GFP (-); p = 0.0393, ESKir2.1 + Bai3 vs. ESKir2.1 + Bai3, GFP (-). One way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. n = 16 cells from 3 mice (CTRL + Bai3), n = 18 cells from 3 mice (ESKir2.1 + Bai3), n = 12 cells from 3 mice (ESKir2.1 + Bai3, GFP (-)). D The percentages of the number of CFs innervating single PCs. The number of EPSCs evoked by distinct CF activation thresholds (step numbers) is shown. p = 0.0061, CTRL + Bai3 vs. ESKir2.1 + Bai3; p = 0.0182, CTRL + Bai3 vs. ESKir2.1 + Bai3, GFP (-); p = 0.9894, ESKir2.1 + Bai3 vs. ESKir2.1 + Bai3, GFP (-). Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Steel test n = 44 cells from 5 mice (CTRL + Bai3), n = 49 cells from 9 mice (ESKir2.1 + Bai3), n = 37 cells from 6 mice (ESKir2.1 + Bai3, GFP (-)). Bars represent mean ± SEM. **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; ns, not significant