Table 5.
Two-way ANOVA results for lick responses to taste compounds
| T1R1+/−, saline vs. LiCl | T1R1−/−, saline vs. LiCl | LiCl injection, T1R1+/− vs. T1R1−/− | Saline injection, T1R1+/− vs. T1R1−/− | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tastant | Degrees of freedom | F value | Degrees of freedom | F value | Degrees of freedom | F value | Degrees of freedom | F value |
| MSG | 1,77 | 1131*** | 1,55 | 258*** | 1,70 | 25.5*** | 1,63 | 0.0 |
| Interaction | 6,77 | 105.9*** | 6,55 | 38.9*** | 6,70 | 1.8 | 6.63 | 1.5 |
| Sucrose | 1,60 | 0.16 | 1,48 | 0.4 | 1,60 | 3.8 | 1,48 | 2.5 |
| Interaction | 5,60 | 0.9 | 5,48 | 0.6 | 5,60 | 0.1 | 5,48 | 0.3 |
| NaCl | 1,70 | 1.1 | 1,56 | 2.7 | 1,70 | 2.5 | 1,56 | 3.4 |
| Interaction | 6,70 | 0.3 | 6.56 | 2.5* | 6,70 | 2.3* | 6.56 | 0.2 |
| HCl | 1,55 | 3.5 | 1,40 | 2.1 | 1,50 | 1.6 | 1,45 | 2.0 |
| Interaction | 4.55 | 0.9 | 4,40 | 0.5 | 4,50 | 0.1 | 4,45 | 1.3 |
| QHCl | 1,55 | 3.8 | 1,40 | 0.1 | 1,50 | 2.8 | 1,45 | 0.1 |
| Interaction | 4,55 | 0.1 | 4,40 | 0.8 | 4,50 | 0.9 | 4,45 | 1.9 |
| CS + AIDA | 1,44 | 1716*** | 1,32 | 190*** | 1,40 | 15.8*** | 1,36 | 0.5 |
| Interaction | 3,44 | 14.9*** | 3,32 | 4.5** | 3,40 | 0.2 | 3,36 | 0.6 |
| CS + CPPG | 1,44 | 2526*** | 1,32 | 108*** | 1,40 | 10.5** | 1,36 | 3.4 |
| Interaction | 3,44 | 24.6*** | 3,32 | 3.1* | 3,40 | 0.0 | 3,36 | 3.9* |
| CS + AIDA + CPPG | 1,44 | 1299*** | 1,32 | 249*** | 1,40 | 36.1*** | 1,36 | 0.7 |
| Interaction | 3,44 | 32.8*** | 3,32 | 15.1*** | 3,40 | 1.4 | 3,36 | 3.4* |
The effects of genotype (T1R1+/− vs. T1R1−/−) or conditioning (saline vs. LiCl) were analysed by two-way ANOVA. The table is based on data shown in Figs 9 and 10. Top numbers for each chemical relate to the main effect (genotype or conditioning) and bottom numbers to the interaction effect (genotype × concentration or conditioning × concentration). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ANOVA. Abbreviations are as for Table 4.