unimprinted

Shown are the upstream movement (A) and selectivity (B) of mature sockeye salmon of experimental fish (exposed to 1 µM L-proline from March to July in 2005) and unimprinted control fish in a two-choice tank containing either the test water (Pro) or control water

PLoS ONE Alerts: New Articles Yuzo Yamamoto et al. 2010

(A) unimprinted control and experimental fish exposed to 1 µM L-proline water from March to July of 2005 in the monthly variation experiment.

PLoS ONE Alerts: New Articles Yuzo Yamamoto et al. 2010

The electrophysiological and behavioral results revealed that there were significant differences between unimprinted control fish and experimental fish imprinted by a single amino acid before and during PST, and that the timeframe for imprinting timing ended after PST.

PLoS ONE Alerts: New Articles Yuzo Yamamoto et al. 2010

Difference in olfactory response to the test water (1 µM L-proline (Pro)) of experimental fish exposed to Pro for 1 hour, 6 hours, 1day, 7 days, and 14 days and unimprinted control fish.

PLoS ONE Alerts: New Articles Yuzo Yamamoto et al. 2010

Difference in olfactory response to the test water (1 µM L-proline (Pro)) of experimental fish exposed to Pro from March to July in 2005 and unimprinted control fish.

PLoS ONE Alerts: New Articles Yuzo Yamamoto et al. 2010

In June and October of 2005, 2006 and 2007, the relative magnitude of the EOG response of fish to the test water in the experimental and unimprinted control groups was examined as a percentage of the EOG response to 0.1 mM Ser.

PLoS ONE Alerts: New Articles Yuzo Yamamoto et al. 2010

(B) unimprinted control and experimental fish exposed to 1 µM L-glutamic acid from 1 hour to 14 days in May of 2006 in the requirement time experiment.

PLoS ONE Alerts: New Articles Yuzo Yamamoto et al. 2010

The EOG to 0.1 mM Ser and the test water (1 µM L-glutamic acid: Glu) of unimprinted control and experimental fish exposed to the test water from 1 hour to 14 days in May of 2006 was measured in October of 2007 (

PLoS ONE Alerts: New Articles Yuzo Yamamoto et al. 2010

The relative magnitude of the EOG response of fish to the Pro test water was compared for experimental fish subjected to different exposure times and unimprinted control fish (

PLoS ONE Alerts: New Articles Yuzo Yamamoto et al. 2010

Although the EOG response to 1 µM Pro was between 15 and 32% of that to 0.1 mM Ser, fish exposed to the test water showed a 1. 7-fold greater response than unimprinted control fish (

PLoS ONE Alerts: New Articles Yuzo Yamamoto et al. 2010