2. With ]egarding to the relatively slow rise times of the IPSCs, we think there are two possibilities. First, more or less, the IPSCs will be unavoidably filtered by its process structure ly their fast rise phase(see the reply 1a)- ut simulation with typical values of the parameters used above 90%rise-time is abeut 0, 5-ms for IP时算二, m BC soma. However, when the 10-90% rise time is about 2.5 ms the increase is less than 10%/Therefore. itseems electrical filtering ter the slow rise times of IPSCs observed in our work 6-7 4e is due to thet int 和+ BCs, just as suggested for glycine 203的2/ eceptors in the neuron of the inferior colliculus(Backus, Frech and Karushaar Perez-Leon, Wassle and Backus, J Neurophysiol 2001)/performing on mouse amacrine cells! They -found-that,-ony compact amacrine cells, the 10-90% nise(Lt me of glycinergic IPSCs is about 2.4 ms, while that of GABAergic IPSCs is much less(see pages 1632, 1637-1639 of the paper). They thought that the slow rise time is not due to process filtering, but may be due to synaptic properties, such as slow association rate constants of glycine receptors, slower transmitter exchange rate. which could be due to different morphological properties, different glial ensheathment, or different transmitter reuptake rate and sparse clustering of glycine receptors resulting in a more desynchronized activation of the glycine receptors. Additionally, Maple and Wu(J Physiol 1998) Le ∠ 2出, A∠F