(A) Latencies to aversive response following placement on a 55°C hotplate are plotted for the indicated genotypes, showing means, sem, and individual latencies. From left to right, n = 19, 19, 24, 11, 13, 9, 17, and 24. Only in the WT vs Slo2 dKO comparison was a difference noted (p = 0.002; KS test). (B) Following formalin injection, time spent in licking the hindpaw was determined for 5 min intervals for WT (n = 10) and Slo2 dKO (n = 9) mice. Here and below, behavioral tests over time display measurements centered in each 5 min interval. (C) Time course of licking response to hindpaw injection of 0.1 μg capsaicin. Small symbols, individual mice. p = 0.012 (KS test). Vehicle: 10 μl volume with 0.35% EtOH. (D) Time spent licking was determined over 10 min following hindpaw injections of the indicated capsaicin quantities in 10 μl vehicle for WT (n = 9, 9, 20, 20, 18, 20, 20, 20, 20, and 9 from low to high capsaicin) and Slo2 dKO (n = 10, 10, 11, 9, 14, 26, 13, 18, 10, and 10) genotypes. Vehicle alone was without effect (n = 10 for both WT and Slo2 dKO). For filled black, open black, and filled red stars, p values correspond to KS statistic with p = 0.000 (filled black stars), p = 0.007 (filled red stars), and p = 0.012 for open black star. For open red stars, a t-test statistic was used with p < 0.01. Highest capsaicin concentrations showed no difference between WT and Slo2 dKO mice.