Startseite | News | .:lab.brembs.net:.

First evaluation of the Rover/Sitter larvae

on Monday, November 2nd, 2020 11:17 | by Simon Benmaamar

I have tested 514 larvae from the forR/forS Control Group and 480 larvae from the forR/forS Crowded Group. Here are the results:

Here you can see the first Control Group I have tested 2 weeks ago. In total 203 larvae were tested (ForS: 101, ForR 102). Rover larvae left the food patch moren often, however there is only a small difference between the Groups: 4,95 percent of the sitter larvae and 8,82 percent of the rover larvae left the first food patch after 20 minutes.

Here you can see the second Control Group, which had a lower density compared to the first Control Group. 311 larvae were tested (155 sitter, 156 rover). Again rover larvae left the food patch more often than sitter larvae, however there is only a small difference between the groups. 14,19 percent of the sitter larvae and 19,87 percent of the rover larvae left the first patch. Interestingly both groups seemed to leave the first food patch more often compared to the first control group with a little bit higher density.

Here you can see the entire ForS/ForR Control Group (256 sitter larvae, 258 rover larvae). 10,55 percent of the sitter larvae and 15,50 percent of the rover larvae left the first food patch after 20 minutes.

Here you can see the entire ForR/Fors Group under crowded conditions. 236 sitter larvae and 244 rover larvae were tested. 9,75 percent of the sitter larvae and 5,33 percent of the rover larvae left the food patch A after 20 minutes.

Here the entire rover/sitter Control Group and Crowded Group were compared. 13,04 percent of the rover and sitter larvae from the Control Group left the first food patch whereas only 7,50 percent of the entire larvae from the Crowded Group left the first patch. So at least there seems to be an effect of the forage competition/food quality on the foraging behaviour.

This effect seems to come nearly exclusively from the forR Group.

Category: Rover/Sitter, Uncategorized | No Comments

New review of the shiming-setup

on Monday, October 26th, 2020 1:56 | by Andreas Ehweiner

Recent wtb test

There often seems to be a strong preference for a side. The laser was off.

Fly had a strong pref for left side, laser was off

Flies often seem to have a strong preferenc for a side. In the imiage below the top fly was punished for left torque and survived, the fly below was punished for the right torque side and died.

Trails with drift

Category: flight, Memory, Operant learning, operant self-learning, set-up test, Uncategorized | No Comments

Testing of the repaired torque-meter

on Monday, October 12th, 2020 12:49 | by Andreas Ehweiner

I’ve started again to test the set-up after repairs. It does not seem to be perfectly stable ,with some drift in the positive direction. Most often, it seems that the amount of drifting would be fine for measuring.

Therefor I tried measuring some flies. A problem now is a very negative baseline, when the fly stops flying. Also the response for left and right seems not to be equal.

So now I’m trying to get the line close to 0, so that I have conclusive results if the set-up if usable at the current state.

2 examples of drift:

Category: flight, Operant learning, operant self-learning, set-up test | No Comments

Gene switch finally worked

on Monday, September 28th, 2020 12:21 | by Andreas Ehweiner

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.

Category: Anatomy, crosses | No Comments

Testing of possible Gal4-lines

on | by Andreas Ehweiner

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.

Category: Anatomy, crosses, Foxp | No Comments

FoxP knock out in adult.

on Monday, September 14th, 2020 1:49 | by Andreas Ehweiner

The repetition of the knockout experiment in adult flies indicates that FoxP is not required for learning in adult flies. (Exp = elav tubGal80>Cas9gFoxP)