Fig. 4
Super-resolved map of GluN2A-NMDAR surface organization in presence of Healthy + and PSY + NMDAR-Ab. a Epifluorescence and dSTORM image of a dendritic segment with endogenous GluN2A-NMDAR staining. Scale bar, 1 µm. Insert panel, magnification of an isolated GluN2A-NMDAR cluster. Scale bar, 300 nm. b Representative examples of GluN2A-NMDAR nano-objects imaged by dSTORM after incubation with either Healthy + or PSY + NMDAR-Ab. One out of three Healthy + and 1/9 PSY + purified IgG samples were used and pooled for comparisons. Scale bar, 400 nm. c Mean ± SEM of GluN2A-NMDAR nano-object numbers after exposure to Healthy + (n = 109 nano-objects, N = 4 neuronal fields) or PSY + (n = 112, N = 5) NMDAR-Ab (P = 0.0751, Mann–Whitney test). d Mean ± SEM of GluN2A-NMDAR nano-object shape factor in Healthy + (n = 368 nano-objects) and PSY + (n = 417) conditions (P = 0.3374, Mann–Whitney test). e Mean ± SEM of GluN2A nano-object area in Healthy + (n = 392 clusters) or PSY + (n = 458) conditions. Note that PSY + decrease GluN2A nano-objects area compared with Healthy + NMDAR-Ab (***P < 0.001, Mann–Whitney test). f Distribution of GluN2A nano-objects area in Healthy + or PSY + conditions. Note the homogenous left shift of GluN2A nano-objects area in the presence of PSY + NMDAR-Ab. g Epifluorescence image of PSD-95 staining and dSTORM image of GluN2A subunits in neurons exposed to Healthy + or PSY + NMDAR-Ab. PSD-95 staining was used to delineate the synaptic area (white dashed lines). PSD-95 scale bar, 400 nm. GluN2A scale bar, 200 nm. h Mean ± SEM of synaptic GluN2A-NMDAR nano-objects number (Healthy + , n = 70 nano-objects; PSY + , n = 66; P = 0.0937, Mann–Whitney test) and area (Healthy + , n = 301 nano-objects; PSY + , n = 322) between Healthy + and PSY + NMDAR-Ab conditions. Note the reduced synaptic GluN2A nano-objects area in the presence of PSY + compared with Healthy + NMDAR-Ab (***P < 0.001, Mann–Whitney test)
