Fig. 3: PSD-95, PSD-93, SAP102 knockdown similarly affects CA1 pyramidal neurons and DG granule neurons.

a Schematic representation of electrophysiological recording setup for CA1 pyramidal neurons. For panels (b), (c), (e), and (f), open circles are single pairs of control and transfected neurons, filled circles represent the mean amplitudes (±SEM), insets show representative current traces from control (black) and transfected (green) neurons with stimulation artifacts removed. Scale bars: 20 ms for AMPA, 50 ms for NMDA, 20 pA. b PSD-95, PSD-93, and SAP102 knockdown significantly decreases AMPAR-eEPSC amplitude in CA1 pyramidal neurons (n = 8 pairs, p = 0.00006, paired T test). c PSD-95, PSD-93, and SAP102 knockdown significantly decreases NMDAR-eEPSC amplitude in CA1 pyramidal neurons (n = 6 pairs, p = 0.03, paired T test). d Schematic representation of electrophysiological recording setup for DG granule neurons. e PSD-95, PSD-93, and SAP102 knockdown significantly decreases AMPAR-eEPSC amplitude in DG granule neurons (n = 7 pairs, p = 0.03, paired T test). f PSD-95, PSD-93, and SAP102 knockdown significantly decreases NMDAR-eEPSC amplitude in DG granule neurons (n = 6 pairs, p = 0.045, paired T test). g, h Summary bar graphs show the average AMPAR-eEPSC amplitudes (±SEM) (g) and NMDAR-eEPSC amplitudes (±SEM) (h) of CA1 pyramidal neurons and DG granule neurons expressing PSD-95, PSD-93, SAP102 miRs (green) normalized to their respective control cell average eEPSC amplitudes (black). Two-sample T tests were used to compare across independent conditions (CA1 vs. DG); (CA1 vs. DG (AMPA), n = 8 CA1 pairs, 7 DG pairs, p = 0.12; CA1 vs. DG (NMDA), n = 6 CA1 pairs, 6 DG pairs, p = 0.34). *p < 0.05; n.s., not significant. All statistical tests performed were two-tailed. Source data are provided in the Source Data file.