Skip to main content
. 2018 Mar 5;115(12):E2829–E2838. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1719827115

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

WT flies guide sweet-insensitive mutants to locate nutritive sugar. (A) Schematic drawing of the two-choice foraging assay: 100 mM d-glucose + 1% agar versus 1% agar alone. Thirty male flies starved for 24 h, unless otherwise stated, were introduced into the arena at room temperature (∼23 °C) in the dark, and their preferences were scored after 2 h. (B) Preference of 24 h-starved ∆Gr5a;∆Gr64a, poxnΔM22-B5 (poxn) mutants, and WT CS flies in the two-choice assay. Asterisks indicate significant differences from WT (one-way ANOVA, followed by a Bonferroni test; n = 12). glu, glucose. (C) Preference of 20 starved ∆Gr5a;∆Gr64a or poxnΔM22-B5 responders when mixed with a varying number of starved WT emitters. Asterisks indicate significant differences from the control groups, where no WT flies were mixed (nonparametric Student’s t test, followed by a Mann–Whitney U test; n = 12). (D) Preference of 30 starved ∆Gr5a;∆Gr64a or poxnΔM22-B5 responders in the two-choice arena: preexposed to starved WT emitters either fed or starved for 24 h. CSX1 and CSX3 indicate one round and three rounds of preexposure, respectively, with starved WT flies in the arena for 2 h. Asterisks indicate significant differences from the control group when the arena was not preexposed to WT flies (one-way ANOVA, followed by a Bonferroni test; n = 12). *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; ****P < 0.0001. Error bars indicate SEM.