Table 2.

Comparisons of synaptic and membrane properties between wild-type and two zebrafish

Properties	Wild-type	two	p-value
Spontaneous mEPC frequency (events/min)	17.8 ± 8.4 (n = 11)	18.5 ± 13.7 (n = 9)	0.9
Spontaneous mEPC amplitude (pA)	1406 ± 166 (n = 11)	85 ± 7 (n = 9)	^****
Spontaneous mEPC CV	0.40 ± 0.09 (n = 11)	0.33 ± 0.05 (n = 9)	0.05
Asynchronous mEPC amplitude (pA)	1543 ± 351 (n = 17)	108 ± 21 (n = 13)	^****
Asynchronous mEPC CV	0.35 ± 0.12 (n = 17)	0.35 ± 0.06 (n = 13)	0.98
EPC amplitude (nA)	18.1 ± 4.6 (n = 17)	2.9 ± 2.4 (n = 13)	^****
Quantal content	12.0 ± 2.6 (n = 17)	25.9 ± 16.9 (n = 13)	^**
N	13.6 ± 3.2 (n = 17)	42.3 ± 27.6 (n = 13)	^***
P_r	0.9 ± 0.1 (n = 17)	0.7 ± 0.2 (n = 13)	^***
Paired-pulse ratio; 20 Hz	0.72 ± 0.15(n = 8)	0.55 ± 0.14 (n = 10)	^*
Paired-pulse ratio; 50 Hz	0.78 ± 0.13 (n = 7)	0.54 ± 0.14 (n = 9)	^**
Paired-pulse ratio; 100 Hz	0.74 ± 0.05 (n = 11)	0.52 ± 0.09 (n = 13)	^****
Steady-state depression level; 20 Hz	0.33 ± 0.05(n = 8)	0.22 ± 0.03 (n = 10)	^****
Steady-state depression level; 50 Hz	0.29 ± 0.04 (n = 7)	0.18 ± 0.03(n = 9)	^****
Steady-state depression level; 100 Hz	0.28 ± 0.05 (n = 11)	0.14 ± 0.02 (n = 13)	^****
RRP/site (vesicles); 20 Hz	2.0 ± 0.3 (n = 8)	1.4 ± 0.4 (n = 10)	^**
RRP/site (vesicles); 50 Hz	2.2 ± 0.2 (n = 7)	1.4 ± 0.3 (n = 9)	^****
RRP/site (vesicles); 100 Hz	2.2 ± 0.3 (n = 11)	1.5 ± 0.5 (n = 13)	^***
Reloading rate/site (vesicle/ms); 20 Hz	0.007 ± 0.001 (n = 8)	0.004 ± 0.001 (n = 10)	^****
Reloading rate/site (vesicle/ms); 50 Hz	0.014 ± 0.003 (n = 7)	0.007 ± 0.002 (n = 9)	^****
Reloading rate/site (vesicle/ms); 100 Hz	0.027 ± 0.005 (n = 11)	0.012 ± 0.004 (n = 13)	^****
Muscle input resistance (MΩ)	397.4 ± 173.5 (n = 16)	385.0 ± 232.4 (n = 20)	0.86
Muscle membrane capacitance (pF)	70.4 ± 13.8 (n = 16)	70.0 ± 15.7 (n = 20)	0.95
Muscle resting potential (mV)	−62.7 ± 2.0 (n = 9)	−64 ± 3.8 (n = 11)	0.31

All data are presented as mean ± SD, with the number of cells indicated in parentheses.
↵****p < 0.0001,
↵***p < 0.001,
↵**p < 0.01,
↵*p < 0.05, 2-tailed t test. Part of the wild-type data were published previously (Wen et al., 2016) and are shown here for comparison with the two data.