View larger version (34K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1. Raw and derived data from all six groups. (A) Raw behavioural scores. Two
different graphs depict the same data in order to facilitate the
interpretation of the complex data structure obtained from our experiments.
(Ai) Multiple bars graph, (Aii) single bar graph. 1ag, high attacks,
high aggressive encounter; 2ag, high attacks, low aggressive
encounter; 3nonag, high/high attacks, non-aggressive encounter;
4nonag, high/low attacks, non-aggressive encounter; 5nonag,
low/low attacks, non-aggressive encounter; 6ag, low attacks, high
aggressive encounter; 7ag, low attacks, low aggressive encounter. (B)
Derived probabilities. (Bi) The probability of attacking
PA. For each subgroup (high, low) the fraction of
encounters where a member of that subgroup was the aggressor is calculated
from the total number of subgroup encounters. (Bii) The probability of an
encounter PE. For each subgroup (high, low) the
fraction of encounters (irrespective of classification) in which a member of
that subgroup participated is calculated from the total number of encounters.
Wtb, wild-type Berlin; 5ht, serotonin; oa, octopamine; da, dopamine; b/e,
ß-alanine; mb, mushroom bodies. See Materials and methods for details of
behavioural classification and fly groups.
|
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
