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.

1. ato-Gal4 x conditional KO —> Removing FoxP in Dorsal Cluster Neurons for Buridan
2. cmpy-Gal4 x conditional KO —> Removing FoxP in Protocerebral Bridge for Buridan
3. temperature switch at embryo stage but shorter time —> for replicating the KO phenotype
4. LexA + Gal4 together to analyze larval brain (I have always considered larvae except for this experiment, so I am doing it to be more complete)

Furthermore, for not loosing time this week I did:

1. Leipzig presentation
2. Wrote a bit of results for paper/thesis

1. Protocerebral bridge lines X CD8-GFP
2. C380-Gal4 X UAS-gFOXP;UAS-Cas9 (+ 2 controls)
3. stinger;Foxp-iB X FoxP-KO

Last week (1.-7.Apr 2019) we noted how many flies want to fly more than 8 min and here is the result (only the ones we noted):
– Wild type: 8/9 (88%)
– ElavGal4 x UAS-Ryr 28919: 3/12 (25%)
– ElavGal4 x UAS-Ryr 65885: 6/35 (17%)

Trace (Downsampled 5) Graphs of Recordings

Wild type:

ElavGal4 x UAS-Ryr 28919:

ElavGal4 x UAS-Ryr 65885:

New Findings:

Elav-Gal4 x UAS-SERCA 44581 flies => Lethal before adulthood! (in all 5 vials so far)