Table 2.

Climbing ability in the absence or presence of halothane with and without illumination

	no anesthetic			0.2% Halothane
Strain name	ambient light	dark		ambient light	dark
Canton-S	0.789 (0.756-0.821)	0.526 (0.486-0.565)		0.375 (0.336-0.414)	0.418 (0.379-0.458)
JC02	0.787 (0.741-0.833)	0.582 (0.537-0.628)		0.033* (0.013-0.053)	0.058* (0.036-0.079)
JC05	0.767 (0.719-0.815)	0.627 (0.572-0.681)		0.068* (0.039-0.097)	0.080* (0.049-0.111)
JC07	0.824 (0.780-0.867)	0.618 (0.561-0.674)		0.080* (0.049-0.111)	0.105* (0.070-0.140)
JC11	0.737 (0.687-0.787)	0.680* (0.627-0.733)		0.072* (0.043-0.101)	0.123* (0.086-0.161)
JC13	0.790 (0.744-0.836)	0.650* (0.596-0.704)		0.040* (0.018-0.062)	0.050* (0.025-0.075)
inaF[P106x]	0.813 (0.769-0.857)	0.471 (0.409-0.532)		0.673* (0.620-0.726)	0.477 (0.420-0.533)

Shown in bold is the estimate of Pt, the probability of an upward transfer, and in parentheses its 95% confidence interval. These values were derived from tests that were carried out, using a modified countercurrent device, under the indicated lighting conditions in the presence or absence of 0.2% halothane. Within each column, comparisons are made to judge whether any of the mutant lines significantly differs from the Canton-S control under the indicated conditions of lighting and anesthetic; such differences are marked with an asterisk. In the absence of anesthetic, no mutant line performs worse than control, so the poor performance of the JC lines in the presence of anesthetic does not appear to be due to weakened baseline locomotion. Note that the values for the inaF mutant confirm our previous observation that the relative resistance of this strain to halothane is dependent on ambient lighting (Cheng and Nash, 2008). See Methods for a description of the countercurrent test, the formulas used to calculate Pt and its confidence limits, and the basis for assignment of significant differences