Fig. 8: AVAL and AVAR differ in biophysical properties and are electrically coupled through UNC-9 gap junctions.
From: GABAergic motor neurons bias locomotor decision-making in C. elegans
a The resting membrane potential (RP) was more hyperpolarized in AVAR (–37.2 ± 2.1 mV) than AVAL (−24.2 ± 1.1 mV). b Current injections caused larger membrane voltage (Vm) changes in AVAL than AVAR. c Voltage steps induced larger whole-cell current in AVAR than AVAL. The pound symbol (#) indicates significant difference between AVAL and AVAR (p = 0.002, two-way mixed design ANOVA). d Transjunctional voltage (Vj) steps caused junctional currents (Ij) between AVAL and AVAR. A series of membrane voltage steps (−110 to +50 mV) was applied to one AVA interneuron from a holding voltage of −30 mV whereas the other AVA interneuron was held constant at −30 mV to record Ij. Left: representative Ij traces from AVAL and AVAR. Middle: Ij − Vj relationships of AVAL and AVAR. Right: junctional conductance (Gj) based on Ij from AVAL and AVAR. There is no statistically significant difference between AVAL and AVAR for both Ij − Vj relationship (p = 0.721) and Gj (p = 0.965). e Deficiencies of unc-9 but not unc-7 or inx-7 inhibited the Ij between AVAL and AVAR. Compared with wild type (wt), p = 1.000 unc-7(e5), 1.000 inx-7(tm2738), 0.000 unc-9(fc16), 0.008 unc-9 RNAi in AVA, and 0.774 unc-9(fc16) rescue in AVA. The asterisks indicate significant differences compared with either AVAL (a, b) (unpaired two-sided t-test) or wt (e) (one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test) (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001) whereas the pound sign (#) indicates significant difference between AVAL and AVAR (two-way mixed design ANOVA). The numbers inside brackets indicate sample size (n). n = numbers of independently recorded cells. Data are presented as mean values ± SEM. Source data are provided as a Source data file.
