Different functions of two alarm substances in the XXXX .

@entity70672 @entity9838 @entity969 @entity5157
In the @entity5157 , @entity70672 and @entity9838 are described as alarm substances. We asked whether both substances have a similar role by testing the effect of their exposure on the appetitive proboscis extension reflex and on the aversive stinging reflex. In the appetitive context of @entity969 stimulation no differences were found between @entity70672 and @entity9838 . Small amounts of @entity70672 or @entity9838 (3 microl of 1:9 dilution) yielded a response similar to that of a non-exposed control. Larger amounts of both substances (125 microl of 1:9 dilutions) as well as mixtures led to a decrease of responsiveness to @entity969 . In the aversive context of electrical stimulation, significant differences between @entity70672 and @entity9838 were found. Exposure to a small amount of @entity70672 (3 microl of 1:9 dilution) or to a large amount of @entity9838 (125 microl of 1:9 dilution) led to an increase of responsiveness to the electric shock. Larger quantities of @entity70672 (125 microl of 1:9 dilution) decreased the responsiveness to the shock. @entity9838 never decreased the responsiveness to the shock. Our results indicate that @entity70672 and @entity9838 have different functions even if both are capable of evoking deterrent responses in a defensive context.
