Table 2. Light-adapted (photopic) retinal light responses (Data for Fig 2C, 2D and 2F).

Light Intensity cd·s/m2	WT-Normal	WT-HFD	miR-150-/--Normal	miR-150-/--HFD
Photopic a-wave amplitude (μV)
0.3	5.1±0.6	4.3±0.6	2.9±0.6	4.0±0.8
1	6.7±1.1	5.6±0.7	5.7±0.3	4.6±0.4
3	12.4±1.7	7.3±0.9 *	8.8±0.8	7.4±0.5 #
10	18.6±2.1	11.6±1.1 *	14.0±1.4	12.2±0.8 #
25	26.7±2.9	21.6±2.3	21.8±1.3	14.8±1.2 #
Photopic b-wave amplitude (μV)
0.3	20.4±1.6	13.3±2.3	13.6±1.7	15.9±2.0
1	37.6±3.2	21.8±2.9 *, #	40.2±4.6	29.4±2.1
3	63.2±4.6	33.8±4.8	66.5±6.7	46.7±3.4 &
10	97.8±8.9	62.3±8.6 *, #	101.2±10.5	72.9±5.0
25	141.5±12.0	84.6±13.0	140.0±12.7	100.6±5.8 &
Photopic Oscillatory Potentials: ƩOP (1–4) amplitude (μV)
3	6.63±0.69	6.03±0.37	7.40±0.86	5.44±0.87
10	11.3±1.4	9.92±0.47	11.7±1.2	8.81±0.90
25	18.8±1.8	15.1±0.9^	19.4±1.8	14.0±1.2^

Photopic ERG a-wave:

* denotes WT-HFD significantly different from WT-Normal.

# denotes miR-150-/—HFD significantly different from WT-Normal.

There is a significant difference between mice with normal chow (both WT and miR-150-/-) and HFD-mice (both WT and miR-150-/-), indicating the impact of HFD on the photopic ERG a-wave.

There is a significant difference between WT (both normal chow and HFD) and miR-150-/-, indicating the impact of miR-150 null mutation on the photopic ERG a-wave.

Photopic ERG b-wave:

* denotes WT-HFD significantly different from WT-Normal.

# denotes WT-HFD significantly different from miR-150-/—Normal.

& denotes miR-150-/—HFD significantly different from all other 3 groups.

There is a significant difference between mice with normal chow (both WT and miR-150-/-) and HFD-mice (both WT and miR-150-/-), indicating the impact of HFD on the photopic ERG b-wave.

Photopic ERG Oscillatory Potentials:

^ denotes both WT-HFD and miR-150^-/--HFD significantly different from both WT-Normal and miR-150^-/--Normal, indicating the impact of HFD on photopic ERG OPs.