Figure 1. Glutamatergic signaling regulates worms staying on a food patch : A-F A) Schematic of spontaneous food patch leaving assay (See methods), B)
eat-4(
ky5) mutants examined for spontaneous food leaving on an E.coli OP50 food patch (n=5),
eat-4(
ky5) mutants are compared to wild type N2 animals tested in parallel, C)
eat-4(
n2474) mutants were examined for spontaneous food leaving on a E.coli OP50 food patch (n=4),
eat-4(
n2474) mutants were compared to wild type N2 animals tested in parallel, D)
eat-4(
ky5) mutants were examined for spontaneous food leaving on a Comamonas sp food patch (n=4),
eat-4(
ky5) mutants were compared to wild type N2 animals tested in parallel, E) Full-length
eat-4 genomic rescue was performed for spontaneous food leaving on an E.coli OP50 food patch (
eat-4 genomic rescue was compared to
eat-4(
ky5) mutants for spontaneous food leaving), (n=5), F)
eat-4 rescue in
odr-3 expressing neurons was performed for spontaneous food leaving on a E.coli OP50 food patch (in
eat-4(
ky5) mutants) (n=3), selective
eat-4 rescue in
odr-3 expressing neurons were compared to
eat-4(
ky5) mutants tested in parallel. Both wild type and
eat-4 mutants were examined in parallel to rescue animals. For all rescue experiments in Fig. 1E and Fig. 1F, the rescue strains were compared to
eat-4(
ky5) mutant animals. For all data analysis, a student's t test was performed when comparing wild type animals to all mutant animals tested on the same day in parallel conditions. Mean +/- SEM, Student's t-test, * p < 0.05, p < 0.01**, p < 0.001***. For all assays n= number of days tested. n.s=not statistically significant, White bars=N2, Black bars=mutants, Red bars=rescue.