Table 4.

Summary of patches/events for triheteromeric system

ConstructInternal solnpHInterval (s)Total events (# of patches)Average latency (ms)Successes % (global)Efficiency (tcrit)
hN1/hN2A (Table 2) ATP 7.4 10 469 (16) 23 ± 5 87 ± 2 (88) 0.85 ± 0.03 (70.1) 
rN1/rN2A C1/C2 no ATP 7.4 10 506 (8) 31 ± 13ns 87 ± 4ns (89) nc 
hN1/hN2B (Table 2) ATP 7.4 20 1,234 (25) 290 ± 50 76 ± 3 (76) 0.56 ± 0.04 (148) 
rN1/rN2B C1/C2 no ATP 7.4 20 360 (8) 190 ± 55ns 84 ± 4ns (81) nc 
rN1 rN2A/rN2B no ATP 7.4 10 509 (7) 14.5 ± 2 89 ± 2 (92) 0.89 ± 0.02a 
ConstructInternal solnpHInterval (s)Total events (# of patches)Average latency (ms)Successes % (global)Efficiency (tcrit)
hN1/hN2A (Table 2) ATP 7.4 10 469 (16) 23 ± 5 87 ± 2 (88) 0.85 ± 0.03 (70.1) 
rN1/rN2A C1/C2 no ATP 7.4 10 506 (8) 31 ± 13ns 87 ± 4ns (89) nc 
hN1/hN2B (Table 2) ATP 7.4 20 1,234 (25) 290 ± 50 76 ± 3 (76) 0.56 ± 0.04 (148) 
rN1/rN2B C1/C2 no ATP 7.4 20 360 (8) 190 ± 55ns 84 ± 4ns (81) nc 
rN1 rN2A/rN2B no ATP 7.4 10 509 (7) 14.5 ± 2 89 ± 2 (92) 0.89 ± 0.02a 

Values are displayed as in Table 1. Glutamate applications were 1 s in duration. Parameters for the C1/C2 constructs were not significantly different (ns) from their respective wild-type constructs (Student’s t tests): hN2A versus N2A C1/C2 successes, P = 0.94, average latency, P = 0.53; hN2B versus N2B C1/C2 successes, P = 0.13, average delay, P = 0.26. nc, not calculated. h, human; r, rat.

a

Only a single exponential was needed for fit so success rate = efficiency.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal