Fig. 5: The feed-forward inhibition in the MD-ACC circuit was changed after nerve injury.

A Schematic diagram of experimental design. B Upper: The whole-cell patch recording of pyramidal neurons in ACC L3. Lower: Example of light-evoked EPSC (eEPSC) and IPSC (eIPSC) recorded at −70 mV and 0 mV, respectively. C Statistics of EPSC and IPSC latency in Sham and CPN group (Two-way ANOVA, Interaction, F_{(1, 21)} = 2.42, P = 0.13; Sham (EPSC) vs. CPN (EPSC): P = 0.02; Sham (IPSC) vs. CPN (IPSC): P < 0.001; Sham: EPSC vs. IPSC, P < 0.001; CPN: EPSC vs. IPSC, P < 0.001; n = 12 neurons/3 Sham mice, n = 11 neurons/3 CPN mice). D Example traces from representative cells in response to 10 Hz MD stimulation showed clear synaptic depression in Sham and CPN group. E Group synaptic dynamics of eEPSC in response to MD inputs (Two-way ANOVA, Interaction, F_{(9, 153)} = 9.77, P < 0.001; Sham vs. CPN, F_{(1, 17)} = 21.06, P < 0.001. n = 9 neurons from 3 Sham mice, n = 10 neurons from 3 CPN mice). F Statistics of eEPSC latency in response to MD inputs (Two-way ANOVA, Interaction, F_{(9, 153)} = 0.45, P = 0.91; Sham vs. CPN, F(1, 17) = 14.05, P < 0.001; n = 9 neurons from 3 Sham mice, n = 10 neurons from 3 CPN mice). G Group synaptic dynamics of eIPSC in response to MD inputs (Two-way ANOVA, Interaction, F_{(9, 153)} = 2.93, P < 0.01; Sham vs. CPN, F_{(1, 17)} = 7.35, P = 0.01, n = 9 neurons from 3 Sham mice, n = 10 neurons from 3 CPN mice). H Statistics of eIPSC latency in response to MD inputs (Two-way ANOVA, Interaction, F_{(9, 153)} = 3.07, P < 0.01; Sham vs. CPN, F_{(1, 17)} = 18.14, P < 0.001, n = 9 neurons from 3 Sham mice, n = 10 neurons from 3 CPN mice). I Statistics of eEPSC and eIPSC latency delay in response to MD inputs (Two-way ANOVA, Interaction, F_{(9, 153)} = 1.84, P = 0.06; Sham vs. CPN, F_{(1, 17)} = 13.50, P < 0.01, n = 9 neurons from 3 Sham mice, n = 10 neurons from 3 CPN mice). All data were mean ± SEM. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.