I retried the gene-switch method with a new solution of RU486. Since it did not worked before I just tried one line. The flies were left for two days on instant food mixed with a sugar solution of RU486. This time I saw normal GFP expression. So I will test all 4 line in parallel after the break.

I finished my cross for the colocalisation of FoxP with the 6 Gal4-lines i ordered.

Two lines show a nice colocalisation and will be tested.

One would show some overlap, but a completly diffrent expression pattern than it should have. So i will try this line again from the stock to exclude a mixup of the line.

The next one dont seem to have any overlap, but also the pattern looks not like it should.

This line seems to have coexpression but the pattern also looks a bit odd, this may be due to a general weak signal and a bad dissection.

The final line seems to have no overlap with the FoxP expression.

Comparison between Control (elavGal4 x CD8GFP) and hsGla4 x CD8GFP. Hs for 3h, fixation and dissection after 24h.

I wanted to expand and look into some general behavior of the mbon-2 flies. Mostly as a complement to the already existing data.

-Introduced Sayani to the wonderful world of Drosophila

-Been doing some DTS coding

-Preparing flies to do optomotor response for Mathias Raß

Updates in DTS code

Refreshing dissection skills

Recently I measured the optomotor response in T4/T5 flies. As expected, they did not respond to the optomotor stimulus as seen in the left chart below. However, statistical evaluation struggles to quantify this difference. It might be that this is because of the low sample size, or that we are using the wrong statistical analysis?

I experienced some issues with the first batch of the UAS-TNT control flies, theyh ad a very low learning curve. The second batched looked fine but the still have a slightly lower learning PI during Test1 than I want.