Fig. 6

Disease modelling of IEM and SFN pain disorders using the Anatomic protocol. A, B Cell size and RMP did not show significant differences observed for both IEM and SFN groups as compared to control. C Rheobase indicate significant lesser current injection needed to generate an AP for both SFN and IEM group. D AP threshold shows significant shift to depolarized potentials for IEM and SFN-derived neurons as compared to control. E Significant shift of afterhyperpolarization (AHP) to more depolarized potentials for SFN patient as compared to control. F Ramp current stimuli 500 pA/500 ms resulted in a significant increase in no. of APs firing from SFN-derived neurons as compared to control group. G Time needed to generate 1st AP is significantly reduced for both IEM and SFN-derived neurons as compared to control. H In response to ramp current injections, there was a significant increase in number of APs fired from both patient-derived neurons (Ctrl n = 10, IEM n = 16, SFN n = 22). Two way ANOVA. A–G One way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparison test. Data are shown as mean ± SEM