Fig. 7: Optogenetic inhibition of pyramidal cells impairs spatial learning while ovoid inhibition spares spatial learning.
From: Atypical hippocampal excitatory neurons express and govern object memory
A Viral strategy for targeting ovoid (left) and pyramidal cells (right). B Novel location recognition and optogenetic paradigm for ArchT-based inhibition. C Discrimination indices on test day for inhibition occurring during training session (n = 6 control, n = 7 ovoid, n = 6 pyramidal; Training inhibition: pyramidal vs. ovoid p = 0.045, pyramidal vs. control p = 0.031, ovoid vs. control p = 0.81, Kruskal-Wallis test; training inhibition from 0, controls p = 0.031, ovoid p = 0.031, pyramidal p = 0.56, two-sided Mann-Whitney U test). Data are presented as mean values ± SEM. D As in (C), but for inhibition during testing (n = 6 control, n = 7 ovoid, n = 6 pyramidal; test inhibition: pyramidal vs. ovoid p = 0.41, pyramidal vs. control p = 0.095, ovoid vs. control p = 0.52, Kruskal-Wallis test; test inhibition from 0, control p = 0.13, ovoid p-value p = 0.031, pyramidal p = 0.63, two-sided Mann-Whitney U test). Data are presented as mean values ± SEM. E–H as in (A–D) but for the ChETA-based ovoid neuron excitation during novel location recognition (n = 6 control, n = 7 ovoid, n = 6 pyramidal; Training excitation: control vs. ovoid p = 0.066, control vs. pyramidal p = 0.81, ovoid vs. pyramidal p = 0.23, Kruskal-Wallis test; train excitation from 0, control p = 0.031, ovoid p = 0.031, pyramidal p = 0.031, two-sided Mann-Whitney U test. Test excitation: control vs. ovoid p = 0.52, control vs. pyramidal p = 0.58, ovoid vs. pyramidal p = 1, Kruskal-Wallis test; test excitation from 0, control p = 0.031, ovoid p = 0.031, pyramidal p = 0.031, two-sided Mann-Whitney U test). Data are presented as mean values ± SEM.
