Skip to main content
. 2018 Mar;25(3):122–128. doi: 10.1101/lm.046136.117

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Wild-type CS, dnc1, and rut2080 flies were presented with gravitaxis cues and trained against a potential preference. (A) There were no obvious group average preferences for a chamber end that was raised up to 15.6°. Conditioning, however, led to high training and post-test scores compared to no-conditioning (Wilks λ = 0.0184 F(51,509.9) = 28.3, P < 0.00001 for all groups and conditions. Duncan post hoc tests with significant differences are represented, (*) P < 0.05; (**) P < 0.01; (***) P < 0.001). The post-test scores were higher with 15.6° compared to the 0.0°, and 7.8° compared to the 0.0°, conditions. (B) Mutant dnc1 flies showed no obvious preference for an elevated chamber end. The training and post-test performance was lower in dnc1 flies compared to CS flies, with the exception of the training score in control conditions. (C) Training and Post-test scores were lower in rut2080 flies compared to CS levels tested under the same conditions. N = 16 trials for CS in each of the conditions; N’s = 8 trials for dnc1 and rut2080 in each of the conditions. Values are presented as means and error bars are SEMs.