Fig. 6

a–d Performance of two-way active avoidance responses of wild type, SAGFF(LF)120A;UAS:GFP, and the SAGFF120A;UAS:zBoTxBLC:GFP fish in blind experiments. Wild type fish (n = 9) (a), SAGFF(LF)120A;UAS:GFP fish (n = 10) (b), and SAGFF120A;UAS:zBoTxBLC:GFP fish (n = 7) (c) were analyzed for active avoidance fear conditioning under blind conditions, in which the fish identities were not known to the experimenter. Sibling fish were used for SAGFF120A;UAS:GFP and SAGFF120A;UAS:zBoTxBLC:GFP. Means ± SEM and avoidance (%) for individual fish are plotted. d Comparison of performance of avoidance responses at days 1 and 5 in Tukey box plot. Mean is marked by ‘+’. Two-way ANOVA, genotype (wild type, double transgenic) × trial number (day 1, day 5) (F = 9.082, P = 0.0005), and Tukey’s multiple comparison post-hoc tests were performed (**P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.001; ns, not significant). Both wild type and SAGFF(LF)120A;UAS:GFP fish exhibited active avoidance. SAGFF120A;UAS:zBoTxBLC:GFP fish showed a significantly reduced performance. e–f Performance of the active avoidance response in 1-day conditioning. One session was composed of 20 trials and five sessions were conducted within 1 day. Wild type fish (n = 9) could perform avoidance responses and SAGFF120A;UAS:zBoTxBLCGFP fish (n = 9) showed reduced performance. Means ± SEM and avoidance (%) for individual fish are plotted. Two-way ANOVA, genotype (wild type, double transgenic) × trial number (S1, S5) (F = 12.05, P = 0.0015), and Tukey’s multiple comparison post-hoc tests were performed (**P < 0.01)