Skip to main content
. 2021 Oct 23;24(11):103334. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.103334

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Antennal response kinetics in BmPBP1-knockout male moths

(A) Parameters considered in the antennal response kinetics analysis of EAG recordings.

(B) Representative EAG responses of BmPBP1-knockout (blue) and wild-type (red) male antennae to 10,000 ng bombykol stimulation (top), and responses to 10,000 ng bombykol stimulation in BmPBP1-knockout (blue) and 100 ng bombykol stimulation in wild-type (red) male antennae (bottom). The stimulus was applied for 200 ms, as indicated by the solid line on the trace.

(C) Kinetic analysis of EAG responses in BmPBP1-knockout (blue; n = 11) and wild-type (red; n = 5) male antennae. Error bars represent ±SEM. The asterisks indicate significant differences between the groups (∗∗p < 0.01, Student’s t test for paired samples). NS indicates no significant difference.

(D) Kinetic analysis of EAG responses of BmPBP1-knockout (blue; n = 11) and wild-type (red; n = 5) antennae corrected by peak EAG amplitude. Broken lines indicate linear regression curves. An ANCOVA test was used to detect significant differences between wild-type and BmPBP1-knockout datasets for recovery time (p < 0.01), whereas significant differences between the groups were not detected in the other two parameters. NS indicates no significant difference.