Gustatory preference under redlight

Gustatory preference under bluelight

Gustatory preference under redlight

Gustatory preference under redlight

DNA Assembly in a 1:2 ratio of vector to insert with gRNAs of rsh and rut (Q5 and template concentration: 640 pg/µl) and 100ng of pCFD6 BbsI AP (using QuickCIP). Heat-shock (hs) transformation into E. coli (DH5α competent) with 10 µl Assembly Reaction and 100 µl cells.

For Crtl, pCFD6 BbsI AP was wrongly used.

DNA Assembly in a 1:2 ratio of vector to insert with the gRNAs of rsh and rut (Q5 and template concentration: 640 pg/µl) and 100ng of pCFD6 BbsI AP (using FastAP and 2 extraction steps). Heat-shock (hs) transformation into E. coli (DH5α competent) with 10 µl Assembly Reaction and 100 µl cells.

For Crtl, pCFD6 BbsI AP was used in reaction.

After dissecting brains from the GAL4 driver line SS56699 with GFP staining and finding no fluorescence, I dissected them again and the immunohistochemical staining showed fluorescence. To check that the correct neurons were stained, I compared the images with the image in the paper by Hulse et al (2021; https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66039) . The three PPL1 dopaminergic dorsal fan-shaped body tangential neurons per hemisphere are stained, but there are some additional unidentified neurons (presumably PPM1 neruons) visible.

Hulse, B. K., Haberkern, H., Franconville, R., Turner-Evans, D., Takemura, S.-y., Wolff, T., Noorman, M., Dreher, M., Dan, C., Parekh, R., Hermundstad, A. M., Rubin, G. M., & Jayaraman, V. (2021). A connectome of the Drosophila central complex reveals network motifs suitable for flexible navigation and context-dependent action selection. eLife, 10, e66039. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66039

Via gDNA analysis and PCR was the specific area of the rsh gene extracted and amplified where the nucleotide substitution: C to T (Folkers et al., 2006) should be for the rsh¹ mutation. The amplicon was Sanger sequenced which proved the nucleotide substitution.

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.