Comparison of two-component recovery from inactivation in mouse and rat. (A) The time course of recovery from inactivation at −80 mV for 16 WT mouse CCs is shown, along with the averaged recovery time course (red line, from Fig. 2 C). (B) Recovery from inactivation at −120 mV for 12 WT CCs, along with averaged recovery (red line). (C) The A_f at −80 mV or −120 mV is plotted for both individual mouse (black) and rat (red) CCs. Dotted lines indicate values obtained in individual cells where both −80-mV and −120-mV recoveries were obtained. Statistical comparisons of distributions of fast recovery amplitude at −80 or −120 mV for both mouse and rat revealed no differences. (D) Mean values (± SEM) for fast (τ_f) and slow (τ_s) recovery time constants are plotted as a function of recovery potential for both mouse and rat CCs. Lines are derived from exponential fits but are only intended to highlight trends in the data. (E and F) Comparison of τ_f at −80 mV and −120 mV between mouse and rat CCs (E), with small symbols corresponding to values from individual cells (F) τ_s at −80 mV and −120 mV for mouse and rat CCs. Using ANOVA with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons yielded P < 0.0001 for comparison of mouse and rat slow time constants at −80 mV, but all other comparisons (fast time constants, fraction fast amplitude, and slow time constants at −120 mV) were P > 0.85.