Fig. 7: Adrenergic signaling drives stress-enhancement of parvalbumin interneuron (PV)-burst-spiking (BS) inhibition in females. | Nature Communications

Fig. 7: Adrenergic signaling drives stress-enhancement of parvalbumin interneuron (PV)-burst-spiking (BS) inhibition in females.

From: Acute stress causes sex-specific changes to ventral subiculum synapses, circuitry, and anxiety-like behavior

Fig. 7: Adrenergic signaling drives stress-enhancement of parvalbumin interneuron (PV)-burst-spiking (BS) inhibition in females.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

a–d Impact of adrenergic receptor (AR) or corticosterone (Cort) synthesis inhibitors in stress-naive females. a Experimental schema. b Inhibitory post-synaptic current (IPSC) input-output curves (left) and slope (right). (LED Intensity x Drug F(6, 126) = 0.3048, p = 0.9334; slope, F(2, 6) = 0.2611, p = 0.7785; saline n = 14/3, AR n = 15/3, Cort n = 16/3). c Strontium-evoked aIPSC amplitudes (c; F(2, 6) = 0.2684, p = 0.7733; saline n = 15/3, AR n = 13/3, Cort n = 13/3). d Paired-pulse ratios (PPRs) (50 ms; F(2, 42) = 0.3617, p = 0.6986; saline n = 14/3, AR n = 15/3, Cort n = 16/3). e–h AR inhibition in stress-exposed females. e Experimental schema. f IPSC input-output curves (left; LED Intensity x Condition F(6, 123) = 4.931, ***p = 0.0001, Control+Saline vs Stress + AR, 0.213 mW, p > 0.9999; 0.528 mW, p > 0.9999; 1.050 mW, p = 0.5795; 1.640 mW, p = 0.4584; Control+Saline vs Stress + Saline, 0.213 mW, p = 0.4963; 0.528 mW, ***p = 0.0006; 1.050 mW, ****p < 0.0001; 1.640 mW, ****p < 0.0001) and slope (right; F(2, 42) = 8.709, ***p = 0.0007, Control+Saline vs Stress+AR, p = 0.3836, Control + Saline vs Stress+Saline, ***p = 0.0005; Control + Stress n = 13/3, Stress+Saline n = 15/3, Stress + AR = 17/4). (g) Strontium-evoked asynchronous IPSC (aIPSC) amplitudes (F(2, 7) = 6.955, *p = 0.0217, Control+Saline vs Stress+AR p = 0.5212, Control+Saline vs Stress + Saline *p = 0.0175, Control + Saline n = 12/3, Stress+Saline n = 13/3, Stress + AR n = 15/4). h PPRs (50 ms; F(2, 7) = 0.6844, p = 0.5532, Control+Saline n = 13/3, Stress + Saline n = 15/3, Stress + AR n = 17/3). i–l Cort inhibition in stress-exposed females. i Experimental schema. j Input-output curve and representative traces (left; LED Intensity x Condition F(6, 114) = 5.539, ****p < 0.0001, Control + DMSO vs Stress + Cort, 0.213 mW, p > 0.9999; 0.518 mW, p = 0.1381; 1.050 mW, ****p < 0.0001; 1.640 mW, ***p < 0.0001; Control+DMSO vs Stress+DMSO, 0.213 mW, p > 0.9999, 0.518 mW, p = 0.2742, 1.050 mW, *p = 0.0188, 1.640 mW, **p = 0.0080) and slope (right; F(2, 6) = 9.566, *p = 0.0136, Control+DMSO vs Stress+Cort, *p = 0.0123, Control+DMSO vs Stress+DMSO, *p = 0.0453; Control + DMSO n = 16/4, Stress + DMSO n = 9/2, Stress+Cort n = 16/3). k Strontium-evoked aIPSCs (F(2, 6) = 11.29, **p = 0.0092, Control+DMSO vs Stress + Cort *p = 0.0123, Control + DMSO vs Stress+DMSO *p = 0.0195; Control+DMSO n = 17/4, Stress + DMSO n = 8/2, Stress + Cort n = 13/3). l IPSC PPRs (50 ms; F(2, 6) = 0.1572, p = 0.8580, Control + DMSO n = 16/4, Stress+DMSO n = 9/2, Stress + Cort n = 16/3). Data: mean ± SEM calculated from individual cells indicated in graphs. Significance: 2-way repeated measures ANOVA followed by Šidák’s multiple comparisons test (b–j input-output curves) or nested 1-way ANOVA followed by Šidák’s multiple comparisons test (b–j input-output slopes, c-d, g-h, k-l). Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

Back to article page