General behavior of the MBON-2

on Monday, August 31st, 2020 12:54 | by

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

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Progress Week 29

on Monday, July 20th, 2020 1:38 | by

-Introduced Sayani to the wonderful world of Drosophila

-Been doing some DTS coding

-Preparing flies to do optomotor response for Mathias Raß

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Progress week 26-28

on Monday, July 13th, 2020 1:39 | by

Updates in DTS code

Refreshing dissection skills

Tdc2-Gal4 expression in adult brain
Actin-GFP expression in adult brain

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Progress for week 25:

on Monday, June 22nd, 2020 1:58 | by

DTS coding
-Added progressbar for data validation
-Updated the progress bar (see figure 1)
-Fixed bug with wrong sample size (see figure 2)
-Fixed bug with unorganized barplots (see figure 2)

Figure 1. Updated progress bar
Figure 2. Correct sample size and restructured barplot

Exp always to the right:
plotOMparams <- plotOMparams[order(plotOMparams$desc),]
plotOMparams$group <- factor(plotOMparams$group, levels=paste(unique(plotOMparams$group)))

Samplesize fix:
samplesizes.annotate(boxes, as.numeric(table(plotOMparams$desc)))

progress <- c(round(l(100/(length(xml_list)))),round(flycount(100/(totalflies))))

-Finished rescreening last Thursday. Started to evaluate the new data

Optomotor platform: Ran a few more tests to confirm that the machine was still working, it is. I also adjusted the 0 line so that it is at 0, by readjusting the “zero line” screw. Looks much better now but it is still not perfectly at 0. A difference 0.1 on the computer screen translates to 100 in the evaluation chart.

Optomotor platform:
Ran a few more tests to confirm that the 0 line is always at 0. Readjusted the “zero line” screw. Looks much better now. It is still not perfectly at 0 but a difference of 0.1 in the chart translates to 100 in the evaluation graph.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Statistical evaluation of OR

on Monday, May 25th, 2020 12:23 | by

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?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Results from rescreen

on Monday, May 4th, 2020 1:49 | by

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Some issues with UAS-TNT control

on Monday, April 20th, 2020 1:57 | by

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.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Motion blindness in T4/T5 using Optomotor Response

on Tuesday, March 31st, 2020 1:48 | by

T4/T5 driver line was crossed TNT line to test for motion blindness using the optomoter response assay. While the controls respond perfectly fine to the rotating striped arena the T4/T5 flies are seemingly unaware of it. Sample size for T4/T5 flies is still a bit low. However, as this is only a trial experiment for the drosophila course I consider it successful.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

T-maze screen with yellow light

on Monday, February 3rd, 2020 12:57 | by

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Preliminary results from MBON screen and habit formation

on Monday, September 23rd, 2019 1:52 | by

The different MBON types and their averaged preference index for Test2/3 during isolated operant component in the flight simulator. Each letter corresponds to a randomized MBON subtype. All but one is being displayed due to low sample size.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email