, 1998). In addition, at most forebrain excitatory synapses, the NMDAR subunit composition changes during development with predominantly GluN2B-containing NMDARs early in development gradually replaced or supplemented by “mature” GluN2A-containing NMDARs (Flint et al., 1997, Roberts and Ramoa, 1999 and Sheng et al., 1994). This shift in the ratio of GluN2A/GluN2B is thought to alter the threshold for inducing NMDAR-mediated synaptic plasticity (Yashiro and Philpot, GSI-IX 2008). Moreover, the switch from GluN2B- to GluN2A-containing NMDARs is bidirectionally regulated by experience and activity (Bellone and Nicoll, 2007 and Quinlan et al., 1999). Given the developmental and activity-dependent regulation of the relative

expression and distribution of GluN2 subunits, an increased understanding of the developmental impact of this subunit switch will yield insight into multiple aspects of synaptic function. Many studies have aimed at ascertaining the precise role of NMDARs and GluN2 subunits in the development of cortical circuitry; however, most have relied on widespread pharmacological inhibition or broad genetic deletions (Colonnese et al., 2003, Hahm et al., 1991 and Iwasato et al., 2000). These approaches are problematic for a number of reasons. First, while GluN2A Ku-0059436 mouse knockout (KO) mice are fully viable (Sakimura et al., 1995), GluN2B KO mice die perinatally

(Kutsuwada et al., 1996), similar to GluN1 KO mice (Forrest et al., 1994 and Li et al., 1994). Furthermore, germline deletion of an NMDAR allele has the potential to disrupt developing circuits, leading to altered or compensatory pathways that result in a false readout of the cell autonomous effects of subunit deletion. Moreover, pharmacologic inhibition and traditional KOs cannot separate the cell-autonomous role of NMDARs and GluN2 subunits from indirect effects on network activity associated with a broad loss of NMDAR function (Turrigiano et al., 1998). Indeed, NMDAR antagonists potently alter afferent patterning in visual areas (Colonnese et al., 2005) and can promote remodeling of thalamic neurons (Hahm et al.,

1991). Furthermore, pharmacologic Oxymatrine blockade has been reported to massively reorganize and cluster NMDARs in neurons, which could have various downstream effects (Rao and Craig, 1997), and interpretation of GluN2 subunit-specific inhibition is problematic (Neyton and Paoletti, 2006). Due to the lethality of germline GluN2B deletion, RNA interference in cultured neurons has been used recently to examine the effects of GluN2B at single cells (Foster et al., 2010 and Hall et al., 2007). However, these results are accompanied by a large reduction in GluN2A expression. To minimize potential indirect effects on developing network activity, we abolished NMDAR subunits in sparsely distributed cells in the hippocampus by introducing Cre recombinase into neurons in conditional KO mice for GluN2A and GluN2B.