These are the raw images associated with
I. Dworkin and G. Gibson, “Epidermal growth factor receptor and transforming growth factor-beta signaling contributes to variation for wing shape in Drosophila melanogaster.,” Genetics, vol. 173, no. 3, pp. 1417–1431, Jul. 2006.
doi:10.1534/genetics.105.053868
A subset of these were also used in
doi:10.1534/genetics.110.125922
In brief 50 mutations (modified P-elements marked by a mini-white) were introduced into each of two wild type backgrounds (Samarkand and Oregon-R) via 10 generations of backcrossing. Flies were grown in a density, temperature and light controlled manner (see paper) allowed to eclose, sclerotize and then were stored in ethanol prior to dissection. Wings were dissected and then imaged. These are those images.
The landmark data (for geometric morphometric analysis) can be found on DRYAD
http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.8371
Please note: For simplicity I have uploaded all of the images on figshare into two seperate filesets (WingsPelements_Rep1 and WingsPelements_Rep2). You will want to have both of them!
These are the raw images associated with
I. Dworkin and G. Gibson, “Epidermal growth factor receptor and transforming growth factor-beta signaling contributes to variation for wing shape in Drosophila melanogaster.,” Genetics, vol. 173, no. 3, pp. 1417–1431, Jul. 2006.
doi:10.1534/genetics.105.053868
A subset of these were also used in
doi:10.1534/genetics.110.125922
In brief 50 mutations (modified P-elements marked by a mini-white) were introduced into each of two wild type backgrounds (Samarkand and Oregon-R) via 10 generations of backcrossing. Flies were grown in a density, temperature and light controlled manner (see paper) allowed to eclose, sclerotize and then were stored in ethanol prior to dissection. Wings were dissected and then imaged. These are those images. The landmark data (for geometric morphometric analysis) can be found on DRYAD
http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.8371
Please note: For simplicity I have uploaded all of the images on figshare into two seperate filesets (WingsPelements_Rep1 and WingsPelements_Rep2). You will want to have both of them!
Notes on naming conventions:GeneticBackground_BloomingtonStockNumber_genotype_sex_individual
Where Genetic Background is either Ore (Oregon-R) or Sam (Samarkand). The two wild-type strains the mutations were introgressed into.
BloomingtonStockNumber: Is the number for the strains from the Bloomington Stock center at the time of ordering. See the NamesOfMutants.csv for all the details about gene and allele info.
genotype: whether the individuals emerged had the P-element insertion (p) meaning they are mutant, or they had white (w) eyes (without the insertion) and were thus wild type for the gene in question.
sex: male or female
individual. The individual fly.
SoSam_02513_w_M_00010.jpg
would be from the cross with the insertion 02513 (allele of argos) in the Samarkand background, but without the mutant allele of argos (as they are "w" for genotype) and male.
As the replicates were done seperately, they were accidently not coded with rep1 and rep2 in the image names, so I kept them seperate. However, they do represent distinict individuals grown seperately.
Notes on all images: I did not notice until the discs with images were copied that one of the two undergrads who digitally captured wings, would only take a single image, when two complete wings were in the image. Therefore , for some lines the numbers appear small. What I manually had to do was go through each folder and look at the thumbnails to see which images I needed to make duplicates of prior to making TPS files for morphometrics. Depending on your goals a similar approach may be necessary.
Links
http://dx.doi.org/10.1534/genetics.105.053868
