Table 1.

Response properties of rods and BCs

	I1/2 (R*/rod)				Imax (pA)
	Rods	RBCs	ON CBCs	OFF CBCs	Rods	RBCs	ON CBCs	OFF CBCs
Wild type (WT)	18 ± 0.9 (8)	3.1 ± 0.4 (12)	7.2 ± 2.2 (8)	12.8 ± 2.2 (7)	27.1 ± 3.5 (8)	273.5 ± 37.1 (12)	18.3 ± 4.5 (9)	21.5 ± 4.6 (6)
mGluR6; OPN4 DKO	16.7 ± 1.2 (6)	− (4)	− (5)	8.8 ± 1.8 (4)	21.6 ± 4 (5)	− (4)	− (5)	14.7 ± 5 (4)
Elfn1 KO	14.5 ± 1.3 (6)	− (10)	6.4 ± 1.3 (10)	9.9 ± 0.6 (9)	27.4 ± 2.1 (7)	− (10)	13.2 ± 2.5 (10)	22 ± 3.2 (8)
Cone Cx36 KO	17 ± 0.7 (11)	3.6 ± 0.3 (7)	− (9)	14.2 ± 1.6 (7)	23.9 ± 1.6 (11)	355.3 ± 54.6 (7)	− (9)	12 ± 3.3 (7)
Elfn1; Cx36 DKO	19 ± 1.8 (5)	− (8)	− (9)	14.6 ± 2.3 (4)	24.2 ± 3 (5)	− (8)	− (9)	5.6 ± 1.1 (4)

Physiological properties of rods and BCs of the genotypes studied (n = number of mice). Values for single cells are given as mean ± SEM, total number of cells (n). The sensitivity (I_1/2) was derived from the best-fit Hill equation: $\mathrm{R}+({\mathrm{R}}_{\mathit{max}}-\mathrm{R})/\{1+[\frac{I_{\mathrm{1/2}}}{I}{]}^n\}$. Max current (Imax) is the peak of the light-evoked current response. The sensitivity (I_1/2) between light-responsive cells in control and KO mice was not significantly different. Rod sensitivity was comparable across animals (ANOVA post hoc Tukey’s method, all p > 0.15). RBC sensitivity was comparable between control and Cone-Cx36 KO mice (Student’s t test, p = 0.33). ON CBC sensitivity was comparable between control and Elfn1 KO mice (Student’s t test, p = 0.77). OFF CBC sensitivity was comparable across animals (ANOVA post hoc Tukey’s method, all p > 0.52).