Table 1.

Sensory acuity tests

Odorant avoidance
Shock avoidance EA IAA Sugar reactivity
Genotype 1:36 1:6 1:36 1:6
Rut2080 68.6 ± 3.1 13.8 ± 5.9 16.9 ± 5.3 9.4 ± 3.4 76.6 ± 3.9 78.0 ± 6.0
Rut2080;USA-rut+ 76.6 ± 3.0 8.5 ± 4.7 23.4 ± 5.6 14.8 ± 5.8 70.6 ± 1.7 81.0 ± 5.7
Rut2080;247 72.6 ± 3.0 15.3 ± 4.0 36.8 ± 8.2 4.8 ± 1.7 64.2 ± 5.1 74.5 ± 6.3
Rut-rescue 71.7 ± 3.8 7.2 ± 3.0 35.0 ± 7.0 16.9 ± 6.9 72.9 ± 5.6 85.8 ± 4.0
247/UAS-shi(26°C) 76.2 ± 2.9 −3.0 ± 4.0 36.0 ± 4.8 11.5 ± 4.6 60.8 ± 2.2 83.2 ± 7.9
247/UAS-shi(34°C) 78.2 ± 2.1 −8.1 ± 8.2 41.7 ± 6.7 16.3 ± 2.0 44.6 ± 8.4 72.3 ± 7.9
TβH+ control ND ND ND ND ND 81.8 ± 5.1
TβHM18 ND ND ND ND ND 80.8 ± 5.6
TH/UAS-shi (26°C) 79.0 ± 4.4 ND ND ND ND ND
TH/UAS-shi (34°C) 77.0 ± 6.7 ND ND NDg ND ND
  • Electric shock, sugar, and olfactory sensitivities of experimental and control animals. Odors were tested at the normal (dilution 1:36) and a sixfold higher concentration. Mutant TβHM18 flies were tested only for sugar sensitivity and TH/UAS-shits1 flies only for sensitivity to electric shock, because they had normal memory scores in the alternative learning assays. No significant differences (p > 0.05) in any of the assays were detected between experimental and control flies. For each experiment, the means of six (and, in the case of sugar, the means of at least 20 experiments, except for 40 experiments on the TβHM18 mutant) are shown. Errors are SEMs. ND, Not determined.