Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Dec 8.
Published in final edited form as: Neuron. 2009 Nov 12;64(3):381–390. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.08.035

Figure 1. Subunit-specific AMPAR mobility on spines before and after cLTP.

Figure 1

(A) Experimental design. (B) Example of a GluR2-SEP-expressing hippocampal CA1 pyramidal neuron and photobleaching of spine GluR2-SEP. S and B indicate spine and background, respectively. (C) Time-lapse images following photobleaching spine GluR2-SEP. Top and bottom panels show dual-color images and pseudo-color-coded SEP intensity images, respectively. Arrowhead indicates the spine that has undergone photobleaching. (D) Distinct fluorescence recovery on spines between GluR1-SEP (n = 14, 4 cells) and GluR2-SEP (n = 17, 4 cells, **p < 0.01). (E) Example of structural potentiation at 40 min after cLTP. (F) Mean changes in spine volume (n = 21, 8 cells for GluR1-SEP-expressing cell, **p < 0.01; n = 13, 3 cells for GluR2-SEP-expressing cell, *p < 0.05) and SEP-tagged AMPARs on spines (n = 21, 8 cells for GluR1-SEP, *p < 0.05; n = 13, 3 cells for GluR2-SEP, p = 0.19) following cLTP. (G) FRAP of GluR1-SEP obtained 50 min after LTP induction shows a significant synaptic immobile pool at the spine (n = 14, 4 cells for before cLTP; n = 21, 8 cells for after cLTP, **p < 0.01). (H) GluR2-SEP mobility on a spine is not affected by cLTP (n = 17, 4 cells for before cLTP; n = 14, 4 cells for after cLTP, p = 0.51).