Claims 34
From the paper Parvalbumin-Positive Basket Cells Differentiate among Hippocampal Pyramidal Cells · claims file · checked 2026-11-06: ready
- figs1e-if-curves
Superficial and deep CA1 PCs do not differ in firing frequency as a function of injected current (two-way ANOVA, p > 0.4; 8 sPCs, 9 dPCs).
There were no differences between dPCs and sPCs in terms of their firing frequency as a function of intracellularly injected current (Figure S1E)
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 2; Figure S1E and legendHow it will be judged
From the Supplemental Experimental Procedures 2B, steps of 1 s from 0 to +550 pA in 50 pA increments, cells held at -70 mV; the data set's steps from 0 to +550 pA are used. How firing frequency is computed is not stated. Readings: (a) spikes during the 1 s step divided by 1 s; (b) (spikes - 1) over the time from first to last spike, the form the Figure S3E legend implies for the model (31.06 Hz for 30 spikes). Spike detection is a standard choice (upward crossing of 0 mV) that cannot change the outcome. A claim of absence, judged on the paper's test as written, a two-way ANOVA of firing frequency on group (sPC, dPC) and current step: reproduced when the group effect is not significant (p >= 0.05), not reproduced when it is; the effect size is reported either way, and a repeated-measures ANOVA is shown as a variant. The expected values, read from the figure, are checked as well under either reading.
- figs1f-input-resistance
Superficial and deep PCs do not differ in input resistance (117 against 124 MOhm).
There were no differences between dPCs and sPCs in terms of their firing frequency as a function of intracellularly injected current (Figure S1E) and in input resistance (Figure S1F)
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 2; Figure S1F; Table S1How it will be judged
From the Supplemental Experimental Procedures 2B, voltage responses to 1 s steps from -100 to +100 pA in 50 pA increments, cells held at -70 mV, measured at steady state 0.8 to 1.0 s after step onset. How resistance is computed from these responses is not stated. Readings: (a) the slope of a linear fit of steady-state voltage against current over the five steps; (b) the mean of the change from the pre-step baseline divided by the current, over the four non-zero steps. Per cell, then mean per group. Reproduced when, under one reading, both group means are within tolerance and the groups do not differ by the paper's rule (two-tailed unpaired t test, Mann-Whitney if Shapiro-Wilk fails, p >= 0.05). Partially reproduced when the groups do not differ but a mean falls outside tolerance.
- figs1g-resting-potential
Superficial PCs have more depolarized resting membrane potentials than deep PCs (about -66 against -72 mV uncorrected; -80.9 against -86.6 mV corrected for the junction potential).
However, sPCs showed more depolarized resting membrane potentials (Figure S1G)
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 2; Figure S1G; Table S1How it will be judged
The paper does not say how the resting potential was measured. It is read as the membrane potential with no injected current: the pre-step baseline of sweeps whose current channel shows zero holding current. Table S1's footnote says the biological PCs were given an unrecorded tonic current during the sweeps to rest at -84.6 mV (corrected), and the Methods say cells were held at -70 mV; if the files show a holding current, or no current channel and a baseline at the holding level, the sweeps do not hold the resting potential and the claim cannot be tested on them. Otherwise reproduced when sPCs are more depolarized than dPCs by the paper's rule (two-tailed unpaired t test, Mann-Whitney if Shapiro-Wilk fails, p < 0.05) and both means are within tolerance; partially reproduced when the difference holds but a mean falls outside.
- figs1h-sag
Superficial PCs show larger sag potentials than deep PCs in response to large hyperpolarizing current pulses (about 8.7 against 5.6 mV).
as reported before (Jarsky et al., 2008), larger sag potentials in response to large hyperpolarizing current pulses (Figure S1H)
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 2; Figure S1HHow it will be judged
Sag amplitude is the difference between the peak hyperpolarization during the step and the steady state; the paper does not define the windows or the step. Steady state is taken as the mean at 0.8 to 1.0 s, the window the Supplemental Experimental Procedures 2B use for input resistance, and the peak as the most negative voltage in the step (a standard choice). The step is open; readings (a) -400 pA, the largest step of the protocol (Figure S3C plots sag against current down to -400 pA, and its biological values there are of the size of Figure S1H), (b) -300 pA, (c) -200 pA. Reproduced when, under one reading, sPC sag exceeds dPC sag by the paper's rule (two-tailed unpaired t test, Mann-Whitney if Shapiro-Wilk fails, p < 0.05) and both means are within tolerance; partially reproduced when the difference holds under a reading but no reading puts both means within tolerance.
- tables1-rheobase
The experimental superficial and deep PCs have the same rheobase, +150 pA, at the 50 pA resolution of the step protocol.
How it will be judged
Rheobase is the smallest step that evokes firing, excluding the tonic current (Table S1 footnote); steps are on a 50 pA grid, so a 10% tolerance admits only the reported step and the tolerance is set to 0. How a group value is formed is not stated. Readings: (a) the median of per-cell rheobases; (b) the mean of per-cell rheobases rounded to the nearest 50 pA step. The first step at which the group-mean firing of Figure S1E is above zero is not a reading, since that figure shows both group means at about 1 Hz at +100 pA. Reproduced when, under one reading, both groups give +150 pA; partially reproduced when they give the same step but not +150 pA.
- figs3f-pvbc-firing
A biological PV+ basket cell does not fire up to +300 pA, fires at about 2 Hz at +350 pA, and its firing rises steeply above that, to about 17 Hz at +400, 36 Hz at +450 and 52 Hz at +500 pA, matched by the PVBC model.
How it will be judged
Firing frequency per step as in figs1e-if-curves, under either of its readings. The figure shows one biological PVBC and does not name it, nor whether it is one cell or a mean. Readings: (a) any one of the data set's PV+ basket cells; (b) the mean over them, using the steps every cell has. The paper does not state the step protocol for the biological PVBCs (Supplemental Experimental Procedures 2B describes PCs only); 1 s steps in 50 pA increments, as for the PCs and as Figure S3F's abscissa shows, are assumed. Reproduced when, under one reading, there is no firing from 0 to +300 pA and the four values are within tolerance; partially reproduced when the onset is between +300 and +400 pA but some value is outside tolerance.
- fig1e-euipsc-dpc-larger
PVBCs evoke effective unitary IPSCs about three times larger in dPCs than in sPCs, in septal CA1 (65.2 against 19.6 pA) and temporal CA1 (65.0 against 24.9 pA).
septal: dPC: 65.2 ± 17.2 pA, n = 7; sPC: 19.6 ± 5.4 pA, n = 7; p < 0.05; temporal: dPC: 65.0 ± 8.3 pA, n = 17; sPC: 24.9 ± 3.9 pA, n = 22; p < 0.005
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 3; Figure 1C to 1E - fig1-uipsc-successes
Counting successful events only, unitary IPSCs are also larger in dPCs than in sPCs (68.4 against 32.4 pA, septal and temporal pooled).
Note that the difference in IPSC amplitudes was significant also when only the successful events were considered ... dPC: 68.4 ± 6.9 pA, n = 24; sPC: 32.4 ± 3.5 pA, n = 29; data pooled from septal and temporal CA1, p < 0.005
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 3 - fig1f-connection-probability
The PVBC to PC connection probability does not differ between sPCs and dPCs (septal 50% and 50%; temporal 48.9% and 43.6%).
the robust difference in IPSC amplitudes was present without a difference in connection probability ... (Figure 1F; septal: sPCs: 50%; dPCs: 50%; temporal: sPCs: 48.9%; dPCs: 43.6%)
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 3; Figure 1FHow it will be judged
A claim of absence, judged by Pearson's chi-square test on connected and tested pairs (Statistical Analysis, Figure 1F), per region, at p < 0.05. Reproduced when neither region shows a significant difference.
- fig1g-somatic-distance
Somatic distances of PVBC-sPC pairs (76.2 um) and PVBC-dPC pairs (70.4 um) do not differ, so the larger dPC IPSCs are not due to pair geometry.
since the somatic distances of the PVBC-sPC pairs (76.2 ± 4.7 mm; n = 38) and the PVBC-dPC pairs (70.4 ± 6.3 mm; n = 30) were not different (p > 0.5; Figure 1G
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 3; Figure 1G - fig1-common-pvbc
When an sPC and a dPC share a presynaptic PVBC, the dPC euIPSC is still larger (63.8 against 22.1 pA, 8 sequential paired recordings).
the larger euIPSCs in dPCs compared to sPCs were also observed when the postsynaptic cells shared a common presynaptic PVBC (n = 8 sequential paired recordings; dPC: 63.8 ± 15.9 pA; sPC: 22.1 ± 5.5 pA; p < 0.001)
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 3 - fig1i-distance-correlation
euIPSC amplitude correlates with PC distance from stratum radiatum (septal R2 = 0.389, temporal R2 = 0.356), but not within either group alone (temporal sPC R2 = 0.027, dPC R2 = 0.045).
While there was a correlation between distance of the postsynaptic PCs from the stratum radiatum and the euIPSC amplitude (Figure 1I; R2 = 0.389, p < 0.05, septal CA1; R2 = 0.356, p < 0.005, temporal CA1), this was driven by the overall difference between sPCs and dPCs, as no correlation remained when examining either group individually (R2 = 0.027, p = 0.22, sPC; R2 = 0.045, p = 0.20, dPC
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 4; Figure 1I - fig1-kmeans-large-small
K-means with two clusters splits euIPSCs into small (mean 22.5 pA) and large (82.1 pA) amplitudes, and large ones are more frequent in dPCs (10 of 17) than in sPCs (3 of 22).
we performed a K-means test for two-clusters, which indicated a ''small''-amplitude euIPSC cluster with a mean of 22.5 pA, and a ''large''-amplitude cluster with a mean of 82.1 pA ... (3 of 22 average euIPSCs recorded from sPCs were ''large'' amplitude versus 10 of 17 from dPCs, p < 0.01, Pearson's chi-square test)
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 4How it will be judged
K-means with two clusters on the per-pair average euIPSC amplitudes, then Pearson's chi-square on large and small counts by group (Results, paragraph 4). The counts (22 sPCs, 17 dPCs) are the temporal pairs of Figure 1E; the paper does not say whether the clustering used the temporal pairs alone or also the 14 septal pairs. Readings: (a) the 39 temporal amplitudes; (b) all 53 amplitudes, counting the temporal pairs. Reproduced when, under one reading, the cluster means and counts are within tolerance and the chi-square gives p < 0.01.
- fig1j-axon-terminals
Single PVBCs form about twice as many putative perisomatic axon terminals on dPCs as on sPCs (8.7 against 4.0).
PVBCs formed significantly more perisomatic axon terminals on dPCs compared to sPCs (Figures 1J and S1I; dPC: 8.7 ± 0.9, n = 10; sPC: 4.0 ± 0.6, n = 10; p < 0.005)
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 5; Figure 1J - fig1-release-properties
PVBC to dPC inputs have a smaller coefficient of variation (0.61 against 1.00) and a higher probability of release (0.92 against 0.66) than PVBC to sPC inputs, with no difference in paired-pulse ratio (71.6% against 88.9%).
the PVBC-to-dPC unitary inputs were accompanied by smaller coefficient of variation (dPC: 0.61 ± 0.06, n = 17; sPC: 1.00 ± 0.06, n = 22; p < 0.001) and larger probability of success in GABA release (dPC: 0.92 ± 0.03, n = 17; sPC: 0.66 ± 0.04, n = 22; p < 0.001), without differences in short-term plasticity properties
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 5How it will be judged
CV from 50 events per pair including failures; paired-pulse ratio as the second over the first response to 10 Hz presynaptic stimulation (Supplemental Experimental Procedures 2A). The paired-pulse part is a claim of absence, judged by the paper's rule at p < 0.05.
- fig1k-somatic-dendritic-ratio
The ratio of somatic to proximal dendritic PVBC boutons is similar on sPCs and dPCs.
the ratio of the number of somatic versus proximal dendritic PVBC boutons was similar between PVBC-sPC and PVBC-dPC pairs (Figure 1K; p > 0.38)
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 5; Figure 1K - fig1l-pv-boutons
dPC somata are surrounded by about twice as many PV+ boutons as sPC somata (107.3 against 55.0).
the number of PV+ boutons around the somata of single dPCs were approximately 2-fold higher than in the case of sPCs (dPC: 107.3 ± 7.8, n = 7; sPC: 55.0 ± 2.8, n = 5; p < 0.005)
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 6; Figure 1L - fig1n-optogenetic-ipsc
Light activation of PV+ cells in PV-ChR2 slices evokes larger IPSCs in dPCs than in simultaneously recorded sPCs (382.3 against 141.6 pA).
resulted in significantly larger optogentically evoked IPSCs in dPCs compared to sPCs (dPC: 382.3 ± 47.8 pA, n = 8; sPC: 141.6 ± 26.3 pA, n = 8; p < 0.005
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 7; Figure 1M and 1N - fig2c-fullfield-running
In running mice, full-field PV+ axonal GCaMP5 fluorescence rises more in the deep than in the superficial sublayer (dF/F 43.4% against 30.3%).
the running-associated increases in full-field axonal fluorescence were significantly larger in the deep compared to the superficial sublayer (Figures 2B and 2C; deep: DF/F = 43.4% ± 3.7%; superficial: 30.3% ± 2.4%; n = 10 superficial-deep FOV pairs in 5 mice; p < 0.05)
Results, Running Evokes Preferential Activation of PVBC Axon Terminals around the Somata of dPCs, paragraph 1; Figure 2B and 2C - fig2e-bouton-roi-running
Running-evoked fluorescence of single PV+ bouton ROIs does not differ between the sublayers (60.4% against 59.3%).
there was no difference in the enhancement in PV+ bouton ROI fluorescence between the sublayers (Figure 2E; deep: DF/F = 60.4% ± 6.2%, n = 5; superficial: 59.3% ± 7.2%, n = 5; p > 0.5)
Results, Running Evokes Preferential Activation of PVBC Axon Terminals around the Somata of dPCs, paragraph 2; Figure 2D and 2E - fig2f-bouton-density
In anesthetized mice, two-photon imaging shows more PV+ boutons in the deep than in the superficial sublayer.
found significantly higher numbers of PV+ boutons in the deep compared to the superficial sublayer (Figure 2F)
Results, Running Evokes Preferential Activation of PVBC Axon Terminals around the Somata of dPCs, paragraph 2; Figure 2F - figs2-ais-correction
Axon initial segment-targeting boutons are 12.7% of PV+ boutons in the deep and 4.2% in the superficial sublayer, and after correcting for them the running-evoked rise remains larger in the deep sublayer (37.9% against 29.0%).
The results showed that 12.7% (229 out of 1,803) of the PV+ boutons in the deep sublayer and 4.2% (49 out of 1,161) of the PV+ boutons in the superficial sublayer were axon initial segment-targeting boutons ... (corrected DF/F, deep: 37.9% ± 3.3%; superficial: 29.0% ± 2.2%; p < 0.05)
Results, Running Evokes Preferential Activation of PVBC Axon Terminals around the Somata of dPCs, paragraph 3; Figure S2 - fig2gi-pvbc-axon-sublayers
Single PVBCs, filled in vitro (7) or in vivo (4), have longer axons and more boutons in the deep than in the superficial sublayer, with no difference in interbouton distance.
analysis showed significantly longer axons (Figure 2G) and more boutons (Figure 2H) belonging to single PVBCs in the deep compared to the superficial sublayer ... the interbouton distance was not different (Figure 2I)
Results, Running Evokes Preferential Activation of PVBC Axon Terminals around the Somata of dPCs, paragraph 4; Figure 2G to 2I - fig3c-spc-excite-pvbc
sPCs connect to PVBCs three times as often as dPCs do (48.2%, 27 of 56, against 16%, 8 of 50), with no difference in euEPSC amplitude (46.7 against 33.3 pA).
the connection probability between sPCs to PVBCs was three times higher compared to dPCs to PVBCs (Figures 3A and 3C; dPC: 16%, 8/50 pairs connected; sPC: 48.2%, 27/56; p < 0.001), with no difference in the euEPSC amplitudes (Figure 3B; dPC: 33.3 ± 5.1 pA, n = 8; sPC: 46.7 ± 10.7 pA, n = 27; p > 0.1)
Results, CA1 sPCs Are More Likely to Provide Excitatory Inputs to PVBCs, paragraph 1; Figure 3A to 3C - fig3-epsc-release-properties
Release probability (0.74 against 0.70) and short-term plasticity (89.1% against 82.3%) of PC to PVBC synapses do not differ between dPCs and sPCs.
there was no difference in the probability of success in glutamate release from dPCs (0.74 ± 0.06, n = 8) versus sPCs (0.70 ± 0.05, n = 27; p < 0.05), and the short-term plasticity properties were also similar between the two groups (dPC: 89.1% ± 16.7%, n = 8; sPC: 82.3% ± 9.8%, n = 18; p > 0.5)
Results, CA1 sPCs Are More Likely to Provide Excitatory Inputs to PVBCs, paragraph 1How it will be judged
A claim of absence. The sentence reports no difference in release probability but prints p < 0.05, which contradicts it; the sentence's words are taken, and the claim is judged by the paper's rule at p < 0.05 for both measures.
- fig3ef-reciprocal-motifs
PVBCs connect to sPCs, and to dPCs, with similar probability and euIPSC amplitude whether or not the PC excites the PVBC.
PVBCs formed unitary connections with similar probability and strength with sPCs regardless of whether the sPCs provided excitatory input to the PVBC (Figure 3E). A similar scenario was observed for dPCs (Figure 3F)
Results, CA1 sPCs Are More Likely to Provide Excitatory Inputs to PVBCs, paragraph 3; Figure 3E and 3FHow it will be judged
A claim of absence, judged by Pearson's chi-square test for connection probability and the paper's unpaired rule for euIPSC amplitude, at p < 0.05, for sPCs and dPCs apart.
- fig4b-pvbc-inhibit-firing
Theta-nested gamma bursts of PVBCs reduce dPC firing (2.1 to 0.6 Hz) more than sPC firing (2.2 to 1.6 Hz), from similar baseline rates.
change in dPCs firing during theta-nested gamma-frequency discharges of PVBCs: 2.1 ± 0.2 Hz to 0.6 ± 0.2 Hz, n = 7; in sPC: from 2.2 ± 0.1 Hz to 1.6 ± 0.3 Hz, n = 8; p < 0.05
Results, PVBCs Nonuniformly Inhibit the Action Potential Discharges of PCs, paragraph 1; Figure 4A and 4B - fig4d-model-feedforward
In the network model, extra excitation to sPCs lowers dPC firing more than extra excitation to dPCs lowers sPC firing, and sPCs are more sensitive to their own extra excitation than dPCs.
increasing excitation selectively to sPCs in the model caused a ... larger decrease in dPC firing than the decrease in sPC firing that occurred after increasing excitation selectively to dPCs (Figure 4D; p < 0.001), and the sPCs in the network (subject to less PVBC inhibition) were more sensitive to increasing levels of excitation than the dPCs
Results, Computational Simulations Indicate Preferential Feedforward Inhibition from the Superficial to Deep PC Sublayer, paragraphs 1 and 2; Figure 4C to 4EHow it will be judged
Needs the network model of ModelDB 153280, run as the Supplemental Experimental Procedures 8 describe (control, and +5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 40% afferents to sPCs or to dPCs; three independent networks; 5,000 ms at 0.05 ms steps), rates normalized to control. Reproduced when the decrease in dPC rate with excitation to sPCs exceeds the decrease in sPC rate with excitation to dPCs by Tukey-Kramer at p < 0.05, and sPC rates rise more with their own extra excitation than dPC rates.
- fig4ef-model-pvbc-rates
In the model, control PC rates are about 2.4 Hz; adding 5% excitation to sPCs raises sPC firing 34% and PVBC firing 65%, while adding 10% to dPCs raises dPC firing 38% but PVBC firing only 15%.
While a 34% increase in sPC firing rate resulted in a 65% increase in PVBC firing, a 38% increase in dPC firing rate only resulted in a 15% increase in PVBC firing (Figure 4F)
Results, Computational Simulations Indicate Preferential Feedforward Inhibition from the Superficial to Deep PC Sublayer, paragraphs 1 and 2; Figure 4C, 4E and 4FHow it will be judged
From simulations of ModelDB 153280 as in fig4d-model-feedforward; each value is the mean over the three networks. Reproduced when all are within tolerance; partially reproduced when the PVBC increase is larger for the sPC condition but some value is outside.
- fig5-cckbc-nonselective
CCKBCs evoke similar euIPSCs in dPCs and sPCs (42.2 against 42.9 pA) with similar connection probability (44% against 40%), similar pair distances and bouton numbers, and no PC to CCKBC excitatory connections were found (0 of 28 deep, 0 of 23 superficial).
the IPSCs generated by the CCKBCs were similar between sPCs and dPCs (Figures 5B and 5C; euIPSCs amplitude; dPC: 42.2 ± 8.5 pA, n = 20; sPC: 42.9 ± 8.8 pA, n = 21; p > 0.5; data from the temporal hippocampus). In addition, there was also no difference in connection probability (Figure 5D; dPC: 44%; sPC: 40%; p > 0.62)
Results, Cholecystokinin-Expressing Basket Cells Do Not Preferentially Innervate CA1 sPCs versus dPCs, paragraph 1; Figure 5C to 5H, S4How it will be judged
Claims of absence, each judged by the paper's test (unpaired rule for amplitudes, distances and bouton counts; Pearson's chi-square for connection probability) at p < 0.05. Reproduced when none differs and no PC to CCKBC connection is found.
- fig6c-parallel-projections
mPFC- and AMG-projecting dPCs of temporal CA1 are largely separate populations (17% of mPFC-projecting and 14% of AMG-projecting cells double-labelled), and mPFC- and AMG-projecting PCs lie mostly in the deep sublayer.
mPFCPCs also labeled from AMG: 17%, 54 colabeled cells out of 314 cells; AMGPCs also labeled from mPFC: 14%, 54/385 colabeled cells; n = 3 animals), indicating that the mPFCPCs and AMGPCs form a largely segregated, parallel projection pathway from the CA1
Results, Heterogeneous PVBC Microcircuits as a Function of Long-Distance Targets of CA1 PCs, paragraphs 2 and 3; Figure 6B and 6C, S5C - fig6e-amg-larger-ipsc
PVBCs evoke euIPSCs three times larger in AMG-projecting than in mPFC-projecting dPCs (64.0 against 21.0 pA), with similar connection probability (36% against 32.1%) and twice as many perisomatic terminals (6.0 against 3.0).
PVBCs evoked significantly larger euIPSCs in postsynaptic AMGPCs compared to mPFCPCs (Figures 6D and 6E; AMG: 64.0 ± 12.6 pA, n = 9; mPFC: 21.0 ± 3.5 pA, n = 9; p < 0.05 ... PVBCs formed significantly more perisomatic axon terminals on AMGPCs compared to mPFCPCs (AMG: 6.0 ± 0.4, n = 4; mPFC: 3.0 ± 0.4, n = 4; p < 0.005)
Results, Heterogeneous PVBC Microcircuits as a Function of Long-Distance Targets of CA1 PCs, paragraph 4; Figure 6D and 6E, S5D - fig6g-mpfc-excite-pvbc
mPFC-projecting dPCs excite PVBCs far more often (33.3%) than AMG- (4.2%) or MEC-projecting (5%) dPCs.
mPFCPCs were significantly more likely than AMGPCs or MECPCs to display excitatory connections with PVBCs (Figures 6F and 6G; mPFC: 33.3%; AMG: 4.2%; MEC: 5%; p < 0.025
Results, Heterogeneous PVBC Microcircuits as a Function of Long-Distance Targets of CA1 PCs, paragraph 5; Figure 6F and 6G - figs1-pc-morphology
dPCs have larger somata and longer basal dendrites than sPCs, with similar apical dendritic length.
there were some morphological differences between the dPCs and sPCs, with the dPCs having larger basal dendritic trees and somata (Figures S1A-S1D)
Results, PVBCs Preferentially Innervate Subpopulations of CA1 PCs, paragraph 2; Figure S1A to S1D; Figure S3A legend
Pipeline
- Paper
- waiting (not checked)
- Claims
- done
- Claims check
- done (ready)
- Attempt
- todo
- Questions
- none
- Verified
- none