PMC

A Scatter plot showing the number of primary processes in group I and group II GIN. B Scatter plot showing the total dendritic length in group I and group II GIN. C Scatter plot showing the total number of dendrite branching points in group I and group II GIN. D Representative morphology of a biocytin-injected pyramidal cell in the mouse cingulate cortex. Sholl sphere intervals: 10 μm; scalebar: 50 μm. Digital reconstruction in the left panel; maximum intensity projection of confocal Z-stack images of the corresponding pyramidal cell in the right panel. E Sholl analysis of dendrite length in group I (grey) and group II (green) GIN compared to pyramidal neurons (blue). The dendritic length is plotted as a function of the Sholl distance (mean ± SEM). Compared to GIN, we found a greater dendritic length in pyramidal neurons (two-way analysis of variance). Group I GIN vs. pyramidal neurons: 10 μm p<0.05; 20–50 μm p<0.001; 60 μm p<0.01; 110 μm p<0.05; 120–160 μm p<0.001; 170 μm p<0.01. Group II GIN vs. pyramidal neurons: 10 μm p<0.05; 20–60 μm p<0.001; 70 μm p<0.01; 80 μm p<0.05; 230 μm p<0.05. Group I GIN exhibited a greater dendritic complexity compared to group II GIN: 80 μm p<0.05; 100–190 μm p<0.001; 200–220 p<0.05; 230–240 μm p<0.01. F Branching points plotted as a function of the Sholl distance (mean ± SEM). Group I GIN vs. pyramidal neurons: 10 μm p<0.001; 120 μm p<0.05. Group II GIN vs. pyramidal neurons: 10 μm p<0.001. Group I GIN exhibited a greater dendritic complexity compared to Group II GIN: 60 μm p<0.01; 100–120 μm p<0.001; 140 μm p<0.001; 150–160 p<0.05; 170 p<0.001; 200 μm p<0.001; two-way analysis of variance. G Bar chart showing the relative percentages of different axon origins in both GIN subgroups. H Bar chart showing the relative percentages of axonal ramifications in the GIN home layer; comparison of group I vs. group II GIN.

(A) Biocytin fills of an L4 GIN cell (left) and an L4 × 94 cell (right), both exhibiting non-Martinotti morphology. (B) Input resistances for L4 × 94, L5 × 94, L4 GIN, and L5 GIN populations. Data are displayed as swarm plots, accompanied by Tukey box plots. The thick horizontal bar within the swarm indicates population mean. The L4 × 94, L4 GIN, and L5 × 94 populations have significantly lower input resistances than the L5 GIN population (L4 × 94, p=3.8 · 10⁻⁹; L5 × 94, p=3.8 · 10⁻⁹; L4 GIN, p=3.8 · 10⁻⁵; Wilcoxon rank-sum test versus L5 GIN population). (C) As in B, but for spike width. The L4 × 94, L4 GIN, and L5 × 94 populations have significantly shorter spike widths than the L5 GIN population (L4 × 94, p=4.0 · 10⁻⁹; L5 × 94, p=3.8 · 10⁻⁹; L4 GIN, p=0.029; Wilcoxon rank-sum test versus L5 GIN population). (D) As in B, but for adaptation index score. The L4 GIN and L5 × 94 populations have significantly shorter spike widths than the L5 GIN population (L5 × 94, p=1.5 · 10⁻⁶; L4 GIN, p=1.4 · 10⁻⁴; Wilcoxon rank-sum test) but the L4 × 94 was not significantly different. (E) As in B, but for estimated rheobase. The L4 × 94, L4 GIN, and L5 × 94 populations have significantly shorter spike widths than the L5 GIN population (L4 × 94, p=7.2 · 10⁻⁹; L5 × 94, p=3.8 · 10⁻⁹; L4 GIN, p=6.4 · 10⁻⁷; Wilcoxon rank-sum test versus L5 GIN population). (F) All excitatory input maps for X94 cells in L4 (left, orange) and L5 (right, red). Bordered white dots indicate the location of the recorded soma. (G). As in F, but for GIN cells in L4 (gray) and L5 (black). (H) Average maps for L4 and L5 NMCs. Both groups receive strong input from L4. L5 NMCs receive stronger inputs on average from the infragranular layers, though there was no significant difference between these groups nor a significant correlation of the depth of the recorded cell with the relative amount of input received from the deeper layers. (I) As in H, but for GIN cells. L4 GIN cells (NMCs) receive inputs primarily from L4 (similar to X94 cells) and are very different from L5 GIN cells (MCs). (J) L5 GIN MCs received a significantly smaller proportion of excitatory charge transfer originating from L4 and L6 than other cell types (L4 × 94, p=7.2 · 10⁻⁹; L5 × 94, p=3.8 · 10⁻⁹; L4 GIN, p=6.4 · 10⁻⁷; Wilcoxon rank-sum test versus L5 GIN population). (K) Averages of binary input maps for L5 NMCs and L5 MCs. Binary input maps were generated by testing whether evoked charge was statistically significant at individual stimulation sites. For each site, a permutation test was performed comparing evoked charge to a null distribution of charge generated by resampling from recording periods without stimulation. Maps were then thresholded for significance following a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Single asterisk indicates p<0.05, three asterisks indicates p<0.001.

(A–L, P, Q, X, AA, AB, A, AF) Ilia; (A–C) Bombina cf. bombina, Selety 1A, GIN 951/1001-AM06; (D, E) Bombina sp., Cherlak, GIN 1110/2001-AM13; (G–I) Pelobates sp., Selety 1A, GIN 951/1001-AM07; (J–L) Hyla gr. H. savignyi, Lezhanka 2 A, GIN 1130/1001-AM29; (P, Q) Bufo bufo, Olkhovka 1B, GIN 11 11/2001-AM03; (X) Bufotes cf. viridis, Pavlodar 1A, GIN 640/5001-AM01; (AA, AB) Pelophylax sp., Lezhanka 1, GIN 1129/1001-AM05; (AE, AF) Rana arvalis, Malyi Kalkaman 1, GIN 1107/1001-AM10; (A, D, G, J, P, U, AA, AE) in lateral view; (B, E, H, K, Q, AB) in proximal view; (C, F, I, L) in medial view; (M–O, R–T, Y, Z, AC, AD, AG, AH) scapulae of frogs; (M–O) Hyla gr. H. savignyi from Lezhanka 2 A, GIN 1130/1001-AM33; (R–T) Bufo bufo, Olkhovka 1C, GIN 1111/3001-AM01; (Y, Z) Bufotes cf. viridis, Pavlodar 1A, GIN 640/5001-AM63; (AC, AD) Pelophylax sp., Lezhanka 1, GIN 1129/1001-AM07; (AG, AH) Rana temporaria, Malyi Kalkaman 1, GIN 1107/1001-AM01; (M, R, Y, AC, AG) dorsal view; (N, S, Z, AD, AH) ventral view; (O, T) posterior view; (U, V) trunk vertebra of Bufo bufo, Olkhovka 1C, GIN 1111/3001-AM02; (U) anterior view; (V) lateral view; (W) urostyle of Bufo bufo, Olkhovka 1C, GIN 1111/3001-AM03, dorsal view. The arrows show the position of the angular fossa. Scale bars: A–Q, AA–AD, AG, AH = 1 mm, R–Z, AE, AF = 2 mm.

(I) Effects of Panax quinquefolius (GIN) alone and in combination with GABA modulators on neuronal morphology as depicted by photomicrographs of histopathological sections (at 40X) of sleep deprived mice brains. (A) Naïve; (B) Sleep deprived (72 h); (C) GIN (50); (D) GIN (100); (E) GIN (200); (F) PTX (0.5); (G) PTX (0.5) + GIN (100); (H) FLU (0.5); (I) FLU (0.5) + GIN (100); (J) MUS (0.05); (K) MUS (0.05) + GIN (100). :Pyknotic cells depicting mild inflammation of neurons (II) The histopathological sections as modified by software for processing; showing outliners of pyknotic cells; (A) Naïve; (B) Sleep deprived (72 h); (C) GIN (50); (D) GIN (100); (E) GIN (200); (F) PTX (0.5); (G) PTX (0.5) + GIN (100); (H) FLU (0.5); (I) FLU (0.5) + GIN (100); (J) MUS (0.05); (K) MUS (0.05) + GIN (100).