guinea pig polyclonal anti-map2 (Synaptic Systems)
Structured Review

Guinea Pig Polyclonal Anti Map2, supplied by Synaptic Systems, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/guinea pig polyclonal anti-map2/product/Synaptic Systems
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
Images
1) Product Images from "Chronic modulation of cAMP signaling elicits synaptic scaling irrespective of activity"
Article Title: Chronic modulation of cAMP signaling elicits synaptic scaling irrespective of activity
Journal: iScience
doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.110176
Figure Legend Snippet: Compound 21 selectively acts on DREADD-expressing neurons (A) Experimental design. Lentiviral constructs were transfected on DIV 4 with virus carrying hM4D(Gi) or Empty Vector, and experiments were performed between DIV 14–21. (B) Representative images of immunostaining for mCherry-DREADD and MAP2 staining. Representative scale bar, 20 μm. (C) Representative current-clamp traces of spontaneous firing before (left) and after (right) acute 1 μM CMPD21 perfusion on control (CTRL), empty vector (EV), and hM4D(Gi) neurons. (D) Comparison of the mean action potential frequency (Hz) following CMPD21 wash (two-way ANOVA with Sidak’s multiple comparisons test, CTRL vs. CTRL + CMPD21 p = 0.889; EV vs. EV + CMPD21 p = 0.150; Gi vs. Gi + CMPD21 p = 0.015; N = 2–3, n = 7–12 per group). (E) Comparison of mean resting membrane potential (mV) (two-way ANOVA with Sidak’s multiple comparisons test, CTRL vs. CTRL + CMPD21 p = 0.276; EV vs. EV + CMPD21 p = 0.053; Gi vs. Gi + CMPD21 p < 0.0001; N = 2–3, n = 7–12 per group). (F) Representative raw traces of AMPA-mediated mEPSCs before (left) and after (right) acute 1 μM CMPD21 perfusion. (G) Comparison of the mean mEPSC amplitude (pA) following CMPD21 wash (two-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, CTRL baseline vs. CTRL + CMPD21 p = 0.697; EV baseline vs. EV + CMPD21 p = 0.990; Gi baseline vs. Gi + CMPD21 p = 0.043; N = 2–3, n = 5–6 per group). (H) Comparison of the mean mEPSC frequency (Hz) following CMPD21 wash (two-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, CTRL baseline vs. CTRL + CMPD21 p = 0.728; EV baseline vs. EV + CMPD21 p = 0.888; Gi baseline vs. Gi + CMPD21 p = 0.913; N = 2–3, n = 5–6 per group). Data are represented as mean ± SEM. Significant symbols used in figures are defined as such: ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001; n.s.
Techniques Used: Expressing, Construct, Transfection, Virus, Plasmid Preparation, Immunostaining, Staining, Control, Comparison, Membrane
Figure Legend Snippet:
Techniques Used: Recombinant, Plasmid Preparation, Membrane, Transfection, Generated, Software

