Table 4.
Three-way ANOVA results for lick responses to taste compounds
| Genotype | Conditioning | Concentration | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tastant | Degrees of freedom | F value | Degrees of freedom | F value | Degrees of freedom | F value |
| MSG | 1,133 | 16*** | 1,133 | 1087*** | 6,133 | 487*** |
| Sucrose | 1,108 | 6.1* | 1,108 | 0.5 | 5,108 | 2.1 |
| NaCl | 1,126 | 6.0* | 1,126 | 3.5 | 6,126 | 595*** |
| HCl | 1,95 | 3.1 | 1,95 | 5.3* | 4,95 | 468*** |
| QHCl | 1,95 | 1.1 | 1,95 | 1.1 | 4,95 | 608*** |
| CS + AIDA | 1,76 | 10.2** | 1,76 | 997*** | 3,76 | 11.0*** |
| CS + CPPG | 1,76 | 12.3** | 1,76 | 637*** | 3,76 | 6.2** |
| CS + AIDA + CPPG | 1,76 | 31.7*** | 1,76 | 1134*** | 3,76 | 46.9*** |
The effects of genotype (T1R1+/− vs. T1R1−/−), conditioning (saline vs. LiCl) and concentration were analysed by three-way ANOVA. The table is based on data shown in Figs 9 and 10. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ANOVA. Interactions were significantly different in genotype × conditioning and conditioning × concentration for MSG, CS + AIDA, CS + CPPG and CS + AIDA + CPPG (genotype × conditioning for CS + CPPG, P < 0.05; others, P < 0.001; ANOVA). Abbreviations: AIDA, (RS)-1-aminoindan-1,5-dicarboxylic acid; CPPG, (RS)-α-cyclopropyl-4- phosphonophenylglycine; CS, conditioned stimulus; MSG, monosodium glutamate; and QHCl, quinine hydrocholoride.