Results of the T-maze screen analysis, both individual and combined.

Yellow 1 (Positive Control): Gr28bd-G4, TrpA1-G4

Parameters: Light: intensity (500 Lux side, 1000 Lux bottom); frequency = 20Hz; Delay = 1 ms; Duration = 9.9 ms; volts = 6.4

plotting the mean ratio of flies which stay in the middle during experiment.

Yellow 1 (Positive Control):  Gr28bd-G4, TrpA1-G4

Parameters:
Light: intensity (500 Lux side, 1000 Lux bottom)

frequency = 20Hz

Delay = 1 ms

Duration = 9.9 ms

volts = 6.4

Yellow 1 (Positive Control):  Gr28bd-G4, TrpA1-G4

Parameters:
Light: intensity (500 Lux side, 1000 Lux bottom)

frequency = 20Hz

Delay = 1 ms

Duration = 9.9 ms

volts = 6.4

Yellow 1 (Positive Control):  Gr28bd-G4, TrpA1-G4

Light: intensity (500 Lux side, 1000 Lux bottom), frequency (20Hz)

Comparison between White 1 ( Control (NorpA- UAS Chrimson)) and Yellow 1 (Positive Control ( Gr28bd-G4, TrpA1-G4).

To test whether the flies are really blind, and there is no problem with the NorpA part of the construct, we compare with NorpA,UAS GTACR1 ; NorpA,UAS GTACR2 ; and another stock of NorpA-UAS-Chrimson.

Weighted mean is calculated by multiplying the weights (total number of flies in that experiment/total number of flies in all the experiments) with the PI for that experiment, and taking the sum thereafter for all the experiments.

Not confocal immages (going to the confocal this week)

The construct I am analyzing is the FoxP-IsoB_Gal4, so with the Gal4 inserted in the 8th exon

Larvae

Adult VNC

Some traces from this week just so that you have an idea how do they look like. To me they are not the optimal traces I expected. But one can see some signal there. I will start the screen hoping to get enough good traces without too much work.

what do you think is the best quality control for accepting a trace for the analysis or not. I was thinking the 3D mapping gives a good hint but without quantification.

In addition I was writting to Andi Straw to solve the issue of running two cameras in the same computers, but now answer

These are the results of the SMAP for the TNTxWTB. I also have done a few for the c105;;c232xWTB but there is not much to say. I would say that the cleanest lines show a bigger slope, but prone to subjectiveness.

In addition, I have done some animations of the attractors that I have posted on slack because of size.

As a pilot for future experiments I tried to reproduce results from Keene et al., 2012. There, they substituted sugar by a laser to provoke PER after 24h of starvation (females, one week old). In TH-GAL4 they found 100% response when they pointed the laser to head or thorax. In tdc2-GAL4 indeed they found 50% of flies responding to heat but only when the laser was pointed to the thorax but not to the head.
Since we do not have this kind of laser, they used, I played around with an infrared light. Flies were fixed to hooks and a clamp as always. First, there was given a filter paper soaked with EVIAN-water (negative control), then there were 10s of heat (36-38°C), afterwards two positive controls: 30% sucrose on the legs and finally on the labellum.
In the figure, you can see that I am able to reproduce the methods with an infrared lamp instead of a laser. The TH-GAL4 flies crossed to TrpA respond much more to heat compared to the controls (see figure in blue and red). The proboscis extension appears already after a few seconds.
Unfortunately, I could not reproduce the results for tdc2-GAL4 (see figure in green). There was no response to heat found at all. (tdc2-GAL4 has to be ok, because I see fluorescence when crossed to GCaMP). Interestingly, the flies did not respond as strong to the 30% sucrose as expected. The starvation may have to be longer to increase motivation?
Next step will be to see a phenotype that can be seen by activating tdc2-GAL4. That may be PER after longer starvation or flight behavior.