8 ± 0.9 to 10.1 ± 3.7 pC (n = 7, p = 0.04; Figure 1G, right). Finally, NBQX application (Figure 1G,

green) blocked the CF-IPSC (by 91.7% ± 2.1%, n = 12), confirming that IPSCs were due to FFI. For comparison, we recorded conventional feedforward IPSCs evoked after PF stimulation that were also inhibited by either SR95531 (n = 6) or NBQX (n = 6; see Figure S1 available online; Mittmann et al., 2005). Feedforward PF-IPSCs were readily distinguishable from CF-IPSCs because PF-IPSCs facilitated with paired-pulse stimulation (IPSQ2/IPSQ1 = 1.39 ± 0.25, n = 6) and the PF-IPSC charge (IPSQ) was not significantly altered by TBOA (1.4 ± 0.6 to 1.3 ± 0.5 pC, n = 7, p = 0.87; Figure S1). Together, these data show that CF-dependent glutamate spillover recruits FFI between neighboring MLIs to engage unconventional microcircuits. The glutamate concentration that results from spillover is lower than from conventional http://www.selleckchem.com/products/Dasatinib.html synapses (Szapiro and Barbour, 2007) and is expected to be proportional to the distance from CF release sites. The number of glutamate receptors activated and their glutamate binding rate are also proportional to concentration (Patneau and Mayer, 1990; Jonas and Sakmann, 1992). Therefore, if the concentration generated by spillover is in the linear range, EPSC rise times will be inversely proportional to peak amplitude since concentration will determine both the number and rate of receptor activation. Indeed, larger

amplitude EPSCs had faster rise times than smaller EPSCs (n = 78;

Figure 1H). Variability in CF-MLI EPSC amplitude is less likely MS275 to indicate clustering of extrasynaptic receptors, since the same glutamate concentration acting at large or small receptor clusters will affect the amplitude but not the rise time of responses. We also found that the distance between MLIs and the active CF (assayed by the postsynaptic PC) was inversely correlated with the CF-MLI EPSC amplitude (n = 8 pairs; Figure S2). Together, these results indicate that the CF EPSC amplitude in MLIs primarily reflects the extracellular glutamate concentration and, due to dilution of glutamate with increasing distance, the proximity from CF release sites. In contrast, the amplitude of CF EPSCs, and thus proximity to CF release sites, did not correlate to the quantity of FFI (n = 22; Figure 1I) suggesting that interneuron connectivity Bumetanide is uniformly organized throughout the molecular layer. Together, these results suggest that CF release generates spillover EPSCs in MLIs that depend on their proximity to the active CF, with feedforward IPSCs distributed across MLIs independent of their proximity to the active CF. The CF EPSC was sensitive to NBQX (10 μM), indicating that AMPA/kainate receptors mediate the majority of the excitatory spillover response. However in 21 out of 26 MLIs, an NBQX-insensitive current remained that was blocked by AP5 (100 μM, 95.5% ± 1.6% inhibition, n = 4), indicating that NMDARs also contribute to the spillover EPSC.