Extended Data Fig. 5: Longitudinal tracking of cells from day 1 to day 2.
From: Mechanisms of experience-dependent place-cell referencing in hippocampal area CA1
a, The fraction of Space PCs from a familiar belt (Day 1) classified as different cell types on Day 2 on a novel belt (162 Space PCs, 5 mice). b, Same as a, but on the same familiar belt for two days (104 Space PCs, 6 mice). c, Same as a, but for Goal PCs from a familiar belt (Day 1) to a novel belt (Day 2). (90 Goal PCs, 5 mice). d, Same as c, but on the same familiar belt for two days (131 Goal PCs, 6 mice). e, Distribution of simulated Space/(Space+Goal) index using a random remapping model. ‘Space/(Space+Goal)’ index: Number of Space PCs that remained space-referenced divided by the total number of Space PCs that either remained space-referenced or became goal-referenced on the next day. n = 10,000 shuffles. Black vertical dashed lines indicate the 0.1st (0.38) and 99.9th (0.62) percentile of the simulations, respectively. Blue and red lines indicate the observed index values for ‘familiar to familiar’ (0.68) versus ‘familiar to novel’ conditions (0.34), respectively. CI: Confidence interval. n = 6 mice. f, Space/(Space+Goal) index (the fraction of Space PCs over the sum of Space and Goal PCs on each day) across days for familiar versus familiar (left, 0.41 ± 0.11 versus 0.37 ± 0.092; p = 0.48) and familiar versus novel belt conditions (right, 0.62 ± 0.069 versus 0.17 ± 0.038, p = 0.0013). Each dot represents one animal. n = 6 mice for all conditions. Paired two-sided student t-test for both comparisons. Data are presented in mean ± SEM. g, Three examples of stable Goal PCs for two days from a familiar belt (Day 1) to a novel belt (Day 2). Colormaps of spatial Δf/f in Pre (top) and Post (middle) for Day 1 (left) and Day 2 (right). Bottom: Peak-normalized (norm.) mean Δf/f in space for Pre and Post. Day 1 and Day 2: The first and second day with a reward switch, respectively. h, Same as g, but on the same familiar belt.
