We compared WT to mSOD1-like (morph) or (morph + R_m) models under different conditions to assess the individual contribution of various factors to synaptic efficacy at various potentials. All values indicate the percentage change relative to WT. The + sign indicates enhancement, whereas the − sign indicates reduction. Total synaptic efficacy was reported from the difference between WT and mSOD1-like (morph + R_m) models in Figure 9, A and B. The contribution of PIC activation alone was estimated from the difference between the active and passive conditions. The contribution of R_m reduction alone was estimated from the difference between mSOD1-like (morph + R_m) and (morph) models (difference between dark and light gray bars in Fig. 9A,B). The contribution of morphology increase alone was estimated from the difference between mSOD1-like (morph) and WT models in the passive case when it is not mixed with Ca²⁺ PIC activation (difference between light gray and white bars in Fig. 5A). The combined contribution of morphology and PIC was estimated from the difference between mSOD1-like (morph) and WT active models in Figure 9A,B.