Table 2. ERG response parameters in the different mouse lines.
| ERG wave amplitude | b - rod | a - mixed | b - mixed | b - cone | |
| Intensity (cd·s·m-2) | −2,0 | 1,5 | 1,5 | 2,0 | |
| WT [D-D] | n = 4 | 304,08±15,39 | 277,90±34,30 | 529,48±34,29 | 188,75±8,84 |
| GCAPs −/− [D-D] | n = 4 | 230,98±22,62 | 177,01±18,07 | 380,65±32,78 | 140,81±19,78 |
| GCAPs −/− GCAP 2+ [D-D] | n = 10 | 69,91±16,57*** | 54,44±19,18*** | 228,38±24,65*** | 180,69±13,77 |
| WT [L-D] | n = 4 | 255,84±11,53 | 203,62±7,83 | 474,29±14,46 | 188,75±8,84 |
| GCAPs −/− [L-D] | n = 4 | 158,81±7,04 | 183,59±9,28 | 446,52±53,77 | 237,84±28,33 |
| GCAPs −/− GCAP 2+ [L-D] | n = 6 | 178,76±37,57 | 185,89±31,38 | 455,33±68,24 | 256,87±31,43 |
| GCAP 2+ [L-D] | n = 3 | 224,31±25,01 | 175,22±12,54# | 420,08±33,97 | 234,25±8,04 |
Statistical analysis: Statistical analysis of ERG data was performed using GraphPad InStat software; each experimental group was considered independent. A general linear model procedure with analysis of the variance (ANOVA) was carried out. Post hoc multiple comparisons Tukey test was used. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. The results were considered significant at p<0.05.
WT [D-D] vs.
- GCAPs −/− [D-D]: n.s.
- GCAPs −/− GCAP 2+ [D-D]:
***
p<0.001.
WT [L-D] vs.
- GCAPs−/− [L-D] : n.s.
- GCAP 2+ [L-D] : n.s.
- GCAPs −/− GCAP 2+ [L-D]: n.s.