Fig. 1: LFS-induced LTD was age dependent.

a, b The developmental profile of LFS-LTDs (n = 8–10 slices/group; one-way ANOVA; F_{(4, 37)} = 47.807, P < 0.0001). c, d Summary of the experiments showing the induction of LTD by bath application of DHPG (50 μM) for 5 min to different age groups (n = 6 slices/group; one-way ANOVA; F_{(4, 24)} = 21_.674, P = 0.653). e, f Summary of the experiments showing the induction of LTD by PP-LFS at 1 Hz for 15 min (n = 6 slices/group; one-way ANOVA; F_{(4, 24)} = 23_.654, P = 0.428). g, h The developmental profile of HFS-LTP (n = 6 slices/group; one-way ANOVA; F_{(4, 24)} = 17_.873, P = 0.836). Scale bars: 0.5 mV, 5 ms. i I–O curves between two age groups (n = 6 slices/group; repeated measures two-way ANOVA, F_{(1, 90)} = 17.274, P = 0.867). j Differences in the PPF between the two age groups (n = 6 slices/group; two-way repeated-measures ANOVA, F_{(1, 60)} = 20.384, P = 0.754). k‒m The frequency (l, n = 9 slices, two-tailed Student’s t test, P = 0.648) and amplitude (m, two-tailed Student’s t test, P = 0.734) of sEPSCs in the two age groups. Scale bars: 20 pA, 2 s. n NMDAR fEPSP slopes between two age groups (n = 6 slices/group; repeated measures two-way ANOVA, F_{(1, 80)} = 21.374, P = 0.703). fEPSPs were recorded in the presence of 20 μM CNQX and 0 nM Mg²⁺. o, p Differences in evoked NMDA currents between the two age groups (n = 12 cells; two-tailed Student’s t test, P = 0.352). Scale bars: 20 pA, 50 ms. q, r Comparison of evoked AMPA currents between two age groups (n = 12 cells; two-tailed Student’s t test, P = 0.721). Scale bars: 100 pA, 50 ms. Data are presented as the mean ± s.e.m. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.