<pclass="imgDescription">Figure 1 Model for fly eye analysis</p>
<p>In the model, we analyzed the imported testing images through the RGB color system and then analyzed the obtained data with the T-statistics. Using the computer program we developed, the color oscillation of the imported pictures of the fly eyes can help to identify the arrangement patterns of the compound eyes. The program then outputs with data that could be used to do statistics to determine whether there is morphological difference between different experimental groups.</p>
<p>The picture from the electron microscope and data analyzed using the method of mathematical modeling show that CAHS3 expression alone has no impact to the fly eye morphology. The expression of CAHS3 does not significantly attenuate the eye morphology defects caused by hTau protein expression. Here, LacZ was expressed alone or together with hTau as a control. </p>
<p>The table shows the comparison between the corresponding groups has no statistical significance (p>0.05), suggesting that the expression of CAHS3 has no significant effects to both the wildtype and hTau expressing fly eyes. 3. The Western blot experiments showed that CAHS3 may be partially degraded in Drosophila, which may explain why it was not effective.</p>
<li>In the experiment, the target protein CAHS3 may be degraded in Drosophila, and its original effect cannot be expressed.</li>
<li>The Western blot experiments showed that CAHS3 may be partially degraded in Drosophila, which may explain why it was not effective. We observed that there were extra bands under the band with the molecular weight corresponding to CAHS3, which suggested that CAHS3 protein was partially degraded in flies.</li>
<p>After the experiment we observed the V5 band and discovered that there are excess bands under our target band of V5, which means that the protein we transplanted to the fruit fly might be degraded and did not express its original effects.</p>