Fig. 3: Experimental analyses of overall synaptic connections between MF terminals and GC dendrites. | Communications Biology

Fig. 3: Experimental analyses of overall synaptic connections between MF terminals and GC dendrites.

From: Developmental timing-dependent organization of synaptic connections between mossy fibers and granule cells in the cerebellum

Fig. 3: Experimental analyses of overall synaptic connections between MF terminals and GC dendrites.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

a Diagrams of three possible connections between MF terminals and groups of GC dendrites. Preferential: glomeruli preferentially include dendrites of GCs with PFs located in a bundle (e.g., S-GCs shown in green). Random: glomeruli randomly include GC dendrites. Avoidance: individual glomeruli tend to avoid including dendrites of GCs with PFs located in a bundle. b Confocal images of cerebellar slices expressing tdT (red) and GFP (green) in different groups of GCs. The expression was triggered by the injection of AAV-GABRα6-tdT and AAV-GABRα6-GFP on the indicated postnatal days. Slices were stained (blue) with a calbindin antibody (top and middle panels), or with antibodies of Kv4.2, vGLUT1 and vGAT (bottom panels). c Distance of two PF bundles (top), and the percentages of overlap of GCs among all GCs (bottom), when two groups of GCs were labeled at various intervals by double injection (N = 4–9 mice, 41 mice in total, 3–5 images per mouse for calculating the percentage of GC overlap). Gray circles represent individual data points. d The RtdT/G in the experiments (DtdT/DGFP) are plotted as cumulative distributions. Two groups of GCs were labeled by double injection at different times, as indicated in the panels. Orange solid lines show the experimental results (N = 4–9 mice, 41 mice in total, 3–5 images per mouse) and dotted black lines show data of shuffled pairs. The x-axis is in log scale. e Comparisons of distribution broadness between experimental results and shuffled data. Distribution broadness was described by standard deviations (\(\hat{\sigma }\)) estimated from lognormal distribution fitting, and comparisons were made by calculating differences in estimated standard deviations (\(\bar{\triangle \hat{\sigma }}\)). Individual data points are shown in Supplementary Fig. 5b. *p < 10−15 (P7&P9), ***p = 6.35 × 10−5 (P7&P10), ***p = 9.63 × 10−5 (P7&P11), ***p = 1.38 × 10−6 (P7&P12), ***p = 5.18 × 10−10 (P7&P13), ***p < 10−15 (P10&P13), one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparison with 0. Data in (c) and (e) are presented as mean ± s.e.m.

Back to article page