Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Dec 19.
Published in final edited form as: Nat Commun. 2013;4:2042. doi: 10.1038/ncomms3042

Figure 7. Bitter-silenced flies retain the ability to reject acidic sugar stimuli.

Figure 7

a. Proboscis extension responses of control (Gr89a-GAL4/+;+/GFP) and bitter-silenced (Gr89a-GAL4/+;UAS-Kir2.1/GFP) flies to 100 mM sucrose alone or in mixtures with caffeine or acid tastants. Sucrose: n=44 (control), n=46 (bitter-silenced); caffeine: n=10 (control), n=10 (bitter-silenced); citric: n =9 (control), n=10 (bitter-silenced); glycolic: n=7 (control), n=9 (bitter-silenced); tartaric: n=9 (control), n=9 (bitter-silenced). *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.005, bitter-silenced versus control, 2-way ANOVA with pairwise comparisons. For each genotype-stimulus combination, independent trials were performed on two days. b. Feeding preferences of control (Gr89a-GAL4/+;+/TM3), bitter-silenced (Gr89a-GAL4/+;UAS-Kir2.1/TM3), and bitter-silenced, antennae-less (Gr89a-GAL4/+;UAS-Kir2.1/TM3 with antennae removed surgically) flies. Stimulus and assay conditions were as in Fig. 1b. n=11,13,3 (sucrose control); n=7–8,7–8,3 (acetic); n=7,7–8,3 (citric); n=7,7,3 (glycolic), n=8–10,8–10,3 (tartaric). Lines with different letters are significantly different, P < 0.001 for all comparisons, except P = 0.031 for b versus c lines for tartaric acid, 2-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc analysis. For each genotype-stimulus combination, independent trials were performed on two days. Error bars = s.e.m.