Biology 210 Bulletin Board

BIO 210 GENETICS AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
FALL 2008

BULLETIN BOARD

Week of November 17 - 21, 2008

Monday November 17, 2008

AM: Lecture/Discussion

PM: Lab

Evening: Lab

Tuesday November 18, 2008

AM: Review for Quiz #5, then Quiz #5!

PM: Lab

Wednesday November 19, 2008

AM: Lecture/Discussion

PM: Lab

Thursday November 20, 2008

PM: Lab

Friday November 21, 2008

AM: Lecture/Discussion

LAB

Drosophila Mutational Analysis, Session 4: Mapping of mutation

Week of November 24 - 28, 2008

Monday November 24, 2008

AM: Lecture/Discussion

Tuesday November 25, 2008

AM: Special 4th Hour - Don't Miss it!

Rest of the Week: Happy Thanksgiving and have a Great Break!

NO LAB This week!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPRESENTATIVE LAB RESULTS

*****Selected DATA FROM LAB Drosophila Mutational Analysis PROJECT *****

1) For People who need mapping data for a scalloped or notched wing mutation

(Call the mution "sc".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

cv + f -------50

+ sc + ------33

cv sc + ----- 9

+ + f -------15

cv + + ------7

+ sc f -----13

+ + + ------5

cv sc f -----5

TOTAL = 137

2) For People who need mapping data for a small, dark eye mutation

(Call the mution "d".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

+ cv f -------72

d + + -------63

+ + + -------- 3

d cv f --------2

+ cv + ------39

d + f -------30

d cv + -----22

+ + f ------18

TOTAL = 249

3) For People who need mapping data for a white eye mutation

(Call the mution "w".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

+ cv f -------33

w + + -------76

+ + + -------- 14

w cv f --------13

+ cv + ------30

w + f -------38

w cv + -----12

+ + f --------3

TOTAL = 219

4) For People who need mapping data for a Barr eye mutation

y cv + -----------38
+ + B----------- 74
y cv B----------- 30
+ + + -----------44
y + B----------- 14
+ cv +----------- 8
y + +------------ 3
+ cv B----------- 3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sample Final Exam Questions (Molecular Biology)

Answers to Sample Final Exam Questions (Molecular Biology)

For selected DATA FROM LAB Drosophila Mutational Analysis PROJECT, scroll down.

The Answer Keys for Quizzes and Exams are now available in the Resources Folder in the Course Ella Site.

REPRESENTATIVE LAB RESULTS

*****Selected DATA FROM LAB Drosophila Mutational Analysis PROJECT *****

For People who need mapping data for a scalloped or notched wing mutation

(Call the mution "sc".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

cv + f -------50

+ sc + ------33

cv sc + ----- 9

+ + f -------15

cv + + ------7

+ sc f -----13

+ + + ------5

cv sc f -----5

TOTAL = 137

For People who need mapping data for a small, dark eye mutation

(Call the mution "d".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

+ cv f -------72

d + + -------63

+ + + -------- 3

d cv f --------2

+ cv + ------39

d + f -------30

d cv + -----22

+ + f ------18

TOTAL = 249

For People who need mapping data for a white eye mutation

(Call the mution "w".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

+ cv f -------33

w + + -------76

+ + + -------- 14

w cv f --------13

+ cv + ------30

w + f -------38

w cv + -----12

+ + f --------3

TOTAL = 219

PTC Gene Project

Lab Data

Phenotypic Data

For all students

Total Number of Tasters: 84

Total Number of Nontasters: 28

For only students who got RFLP data

Total Number of Tasters: 55

Total Number of Nontasters: 17

Genotypic Data

Number of TT: 19

Number of Tt: 38

Number of tt: 15

DNA samples that have been sequenced (Note: all were sequenced with both the Forward Primer and the Reverse Primer.)

DNA Sample Name, Phenotype, Genotype (determined by RFLP)

EC, Taster, TT

LYL, Taster, Tt

AMS, Nontaster, tt

AW, Taster, tt?

SP, Nontaster, Tt?

RS, Nontaster, Tt?

AF, Taster, TT

SF, Nontaster, tt

ALM, Taster, ?

ALL, Taster, TT

CP, Nontaster, tt

CB, Nontaster, tt?

DT, Nontaster, tt

BG, Taster, TT

MK, Taster, Tt

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sample Final Exam Questions (Molecular Biology)

Answers to Sample Final Exam Questions (Molecular Biology)

REPRESENTATIVE LAB RESULTS

*****Selected DATA FROM LAB Drosophila Mutational Analysis PROJECT *****

For People who need mapping data for a scalloped or notched wing mutation

(Call the mution "sc".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

cv + f -------50

+ sc + ------33

cv sc + ----- 9

+ + f -------15

cv + + ------7

+ sc f -----13

+ + + ------5

cv sc f -----5

TOTAL = 137

For People who need mapping data for a small, dark eye mutation

(Call the mution "d".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

+ cv f -------72

d + + -------63

+ + + -------- 3

d cv f --------2

+ cv + ------39

d + f -------30

d cv + -----22

+ + f ------18

TOTAL = 249

For People who need mapping data for a white eye mutation

(Call the mution "w".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

+ cv f -------33

w + + -------76

+ + + -------- 14

w cv f --------13

+ cv + ------30

w + f -------38

w cv + -----12

+ + f --------3

TOTAL = 219

LAB PROJECT 1 (P-Elements) PCR Primer Sequences:

Forward Primer: 5'-GCCGAAGCTTACCGAAGTAT-3'

Reverse Primer: 5'-CGTATGCTTGCAATAAGTGC-3'

LAB PROJECT 1 (P-Elements) CLASS RESULTS

REPRESENTATIVE CLASS DATA FOR

Gels of PCR Products (Project 1) (Fall 2006)

***NOTE: The sequencing data are in the Wiki of the Course ella site.

pπ25.1 Recombinant Plasmid Sequence P-element Control

1 band:

2.8 kb (Sequenced three times = Template 1, Template 2, and Template 3 ["Template" means the same thing as "Sequence" on the Wiki.])

Control Drosophila melanogaster Strains

CS Bloom (negative control)

NO BANDS

4264 (= Harwich) (+ control flies)

6 bands:

2.8 kb (Sequenced = Template 4), 1.6 kb, 1.2 kb, 0.98 kb, 0.6 kb (Sequenced = Template 5), 0.5 kb (Sequenced = Template 6)

Experimental Drosophila melanogaster Strains

West Parish 2006 (isolated in August 2006)

3 bands:

2.8 kb (Sequenced = Template 9), 1.15 kb (Sequenced = Template 7), 0.78 kb (Sequenced = Template 8)

SH 2003 (isolated in August, 2003)

3 bands:

2.6 kb (Sequenced = Template 10) or 2.8 kb (Sequenced = Template 14), 1.2 (Sequenced = Template 11) or 1.05 kb (Sequenced = Template 12), 0.65 kb (Sequenced = Template 13)

21 Woodbridge 2002 (isolated in August, 2002)

4 bands:

2.8 kb (Sequenced = Template 15), 1.5 kb (Sequenced = Template 16), 0.92 kb (Sequenced = Template 17), 0.76 kb (Sequenced = Template 18)

Blanchard 1999 (isolated in August, 1999)

3 bands:

2.3 kb (Sequenced = Template 21)1.1 kb (Sequenced = Template 19), 0.42 kb (Sequenced = Template 20)

Western Mass 2004 (isolated in August, 2004)

3 bands:

1.3 kb (Sequenced = Template 24), 1.05 kb (Sequenced = Template 23), 0.5 kb (Sequenced = Template 22)

West Parish 2005 (isolated in August 2005)

No Bands

Other Drosophila Species

Drosophila mauritiana

NO BANDS

Drosophila simulans

NO BANDS

Drosophila virilis

NO BANDS

Drosophila yakuba

NO BANDS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sample Final Exam Questions (Molecular Biology)

Answers to Sample Final Exam Questions (Molecular Biology)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Everything Below this Line is from Years Past!

REPRESENTATIVE LAB RESULTS

*****Selected DATA FROM LAB PROJECT #2*****

For People who need mapping data for a scalloped or notched wing mutation

(Call the mution "sc".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

cv + f -------50

+ sc + ------33

cv sc + ----- 9

+ + f -------15

cv + + ------7

+ sc f -----13

+ + + ------5

cv sc f -----5

TOTAL = 137

For People who need mapping data for a small, dark eye mutation

(Call the mution "d".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

+ cv f -------72

d + + -------63

+ + + -------- 3

d cv f --------2

+ cv + ------39

d + f -------30

d cv + -----22

+ + f ------18

TOTAL = 249

For People who need mapping data for a white eye mutation

(Call the mution "w".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

+ cv f -------33

w + + -------76

+ + + -------- 14

w cv f --------13

+ cv + ------30

w + f -------38

w cv + -----12

+ + f --------3

TOTAL = 219

LAB PROJECT 1 (P-Elements) CLASS RESULTS

REPRESENTATIVE CLASS DATA FOR

Southern Blot Autoradiograms (Project 1) (Fall, 2004)

Control Drosophila melanogaster Strains

CS Bloom (negative control)

NO BANDS

2384 (= pi2(P) (positive control)

6bands:

11.5 kb, 5.5 kb, 4 kb, 2.5 kb, 3.0 kb, 2.8kb

4264 (= Harwich) (positive control)

5 bands:

7.2kb, 4.5, 2.8 kb, 1.4 kb, 0.92 kb

Experimental Drosophila melanogaster Strains

Western Mass, 2004 (isolated in August, 2004)

NO BANDS - This same result was found by 5 different groups

Blanchard (isolated in August, 1999)

P-elements detected, but DNA not digested well enough to give discrete bands

21 Woodbridge (isolated in August, 2002)

5 bands:

8.4 kb, 4.7 kb, 2.8 kb, 2.0 kb, 1.5 kb

SH 2003 (isolated in August, 2003)

6 bands:

7.5 kb, 6.0 kb, 3.6 kb, 2.5 kb, 1.9 kb, 1.8 kb

Other Drosophila Species

Drosophila mauritiana

NO BANDS

Drosophila simulans

NO BANDS

Drosophila yakuba

NO BANDS

Drosophila virilis

NO BANDS

DATA FROM LAST YEAR (2003)

Control Drosophila melanogaster Strains

CS Bloom (negative control)

NO BANDS

2384 = pi2(P) (positive control)

6bands:

11.5 kb, 8.5 kb, 7.5 kb, 5.0 kb, 3.0 kb, 2.8kb

4264 = Harwich (positive control)

8 bands:

10.75 kb, 8.0 kb, 6.8 kb, 5.2 kb, 4.2 kb,3.2 kb, 2.8 kb, 2.0 kb

Experimental Drosophila melanogaster Strains

*Blanchard (isolated in August, 1999)

10 bands:

9.0 kb, 8.4 kb, 7.2 kb, 5.6 kb, 4.8 kb, 4.0 kb, 2.9 kb, 2.5 kb, 1.6kb, 1.2kb

21 Woodbridge (isolated in August, 2002)

no data (Experiment did not work!)

SH 2003

8 bands:

8.6, 7.2 kb, 6.2 kb, 5.4 kb, 3.6 kb, 2.8kb, 2.3 kb, 1.9kb

Other Drosophila Species

Drosophila virilis

NO BANDS (but gel did not have a lot of DNA)

DATA FROM 2002

REPRESENTATIVE CLASS DATA FOR

Southern Blot Autoradiograms (Project 1) From Fall, 2002

Control Drosophila melanogaster Strains

CS Bloom (negative control)

NO BANDS

2384 = pi2(P) (positive control)

8 bands:

7.4 kb, 6.0 kb, 4.8 kb, 4.0 kb, 2.3 kb, 1.7 kb, 1.2 kb. 0.8 kb

4264 = Harwich (positive control)

8 bands:

9.4 kb, 7.4 kb, 5.3 kb, 3.8 kb, 3.0 kb, 2.3 kb, 1.7 kb, 1.3 kb

Experimental Drosophila melanogaster Strains

*Blanchard (isolated in August, 1999)

9 bands:

9.0 kb, 7.5 kb, 6.2 kb, 4.5 kb, 3.5 kb, 2.7 kb, 2.5 kb, 1.6 kb, 1.2 kb

Blanchard 1999 Data from 2001

8 bands:

8.2 kb, 5.7 kb, 3.5 kb, 3.0 kb, 2.4 kb, 1.7 kb, 1.4 kb, 1.1 kb (The same result as in 1999 and 2000)

21 Woodbridge (isolated August, 2002)

8 bands:

5.5 kb, 4.5 kb, 3.2 kb, 2.6 kb, 2.2 kb, 1.8 kb, 1.5 kb, 1.3 kb

South Hadley 2002 (Different from SH 2003!)

5 bands:

7.2 kb, 7.0 kb, 5.3 kb, 4.4 kb, 2.2 kb

Other Drosophila Species

Drosophila mauritiana

NO BANDS

Drosophila simulans

NO BANDS

Drosophila yakuba

NO BANDS

Drosophila virilis

NO BANDS (but gel did not have a lot of DNA)

Data from 2001

*Blanchard (isolated in August, 1999)

8 bands:

8.2 kb, 5.7 kb, 3.5 kb, 3.0 kb, 2.4 kb, 1.7 kb, 1.4 kb, 1.1 kb (The same result as in 1999 and 2000)

Guidelines for Methods and Materials and Results
Methods and Materials:
1. Is the methods and materials section in past tense? Some professors require that the methods and materials be in the passive voice without the use of “I” or “us.”
2. If the method was obtained from a lab manual or based upon published literature, is the manual or journal cited and are changes made to that procedure noted?
3. Does the paper specify the genus and species name of all organisms?
Ex: Brasica rapa (Genus species)
4. Are the apparatuses, tools, machinery, and other piece of equipment described?
5. Are the conditions and quantities of material specified?
6. Do the paragraphs flow in a readable way and avoid sounding like a recipe, and have enough detail (but not too much) such that another scientist could repeat the experiment?
Results:
1. Does the written part of the results summarize the data and point out important trends or patterns in the data?
2. Does the written data “send” the reader to important findings and mention figures and table by number in the text of the paragraph?
3. Is the quantitative data, which may also be in the form of graphs and tables, integrated into the body of the results?
4. Is the word “significant” only used when the data has undergone statistical tests that indicated the difference was statistically significant?
5. Is the data presented as tables or graphs clear and do the graphs accurately describe the results of the experiment?
6. Are the graphs and tables clearly titled to go with well written descriptive body text (or figure legends) that accurately describe the table or graph? Are all axes labeled clearly? (Table title on top, Figure title on bottom)
7. Are the results presented in a way that is relevant to the hypothesis?
8. In some cases, sample calculations should be shown or further explanation of calculations should be included in the appendix.
9. The results section should only describe the results; there should be no analysis or interpretation of the data.

Science Writing Workshop III—Discussions
Discussion:
So, you did the experiment. What did you find? How does that relate to your hypothesis? What does that mean to you, to the experiment, to the rest of the world? Why is it important? What might have gone wrong? (Why? How?) What went according to plan? What surprised you? What would you have changed? How would you expand the project?
1. Are the results discussed in the context of supporting or not supporting the hypothesis? One can never prove something experimentally, but one can disprove or support a hypothesis or conclusions.
2. Are the conclusions reached from the results logical and explainable?
3. Are other studies used, if needed, to compare the results of this experiment or paper with other published data?
4. Are negative results explained in the context of experimental error, confounding variables, or some other hypothesis taken from personal experience or the literature?
5. Does the discussion address the major implications of your findings?
6. Does the discussion include other possible experiments or observations that could enhance the understanding of the topic?

These questions were originally created by Sarah Cutler and Erin Whitehouse are taken in part from:

McMillan, Victoria, E. (2001). Writing Papers in the Biological Sciences. 3rd edition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.

Lab Report Checklist
Title:
1. Does the title precisely state the topic and experimental organism of the paper or experiment?
Abstract:
1. Does the abstract concisely present the main points of the paper including the hypothesis, introduction, results, and conclusions?
2. Are there words or phases that could be eliminated?
Introduction:
1. Is tense consistent? It is often easier to write the Introduction in the past tense, but some (writers and professors) prefer present tense
2. Are key concepts significant to the paper or the experiment introduced?
3. Does the introduction put the current experiment in context with previous work?
4. Is there information that is unnecessary and can be eliminated or are there concepts that need to be explained in more detail?
5. Is the hypothesis clearly stated in the end of the introduction and does the introduction lead up to the hypothesis?
6. If needed, is the null hypothesis clearly stated?
Ex: If trichome number is controlled by a single on/off gene, then smooth parents should have exclusively smooth offspring.
7. Is the alternative hypothesis clearly states, if needed?
Ex: Alternatively, if the interbreeding of hairy Brassica does not produce offspring with more hairs, the resulting generation will show wild-type characteristics.
Methods and Materials:
1. Is the methods and materials section in the past tense? Active voice is clearer and more interesting—the trend in the biological sciences is to use active voice. Some disciplines and professors (notably chemistry) still prefer passive voice without the use of “I” or “we”.
2. Does the paper specify the genus and species name of all organisms?
Ex: Brassica rapa (Genus species)
3. Are the apparatuses, tools, machinery, and other piece of equipment described?
4. Are the conditions and quantities of material specified?
5. Has someone else (another investigator, the professor who wrote the lab manual) outlined a procedure which you followed? If yes, summarize briefly any changes you made and refer the reader to the article/lab manual you followed.
6. Have you used enough detail so that the experiment could be accurately repeated by another independent investigator, but not so much that the methods and materials are long and overly tedious to read? (Did you avoid writing a recipe?)
Results:
1. Does the written part of the results summarize the data and point out important trends or patterns in the data?
2. Do the written data “send” the reader to important findings and mention figures and table by number in the text of the paragraph?
3. Are the quantitative data, which may also be in the form of graphs and tables, integrated into the body of the results?
4. Is the word “significant” only used when the data has undergone statistical tests that indicated the difference was statistically significant?
5. Are the data presented as tables or graphs clear and do the graphs accurately describe the results of the experiment?
6. Are the graphs and tables clearly titled with figure legends that accurately describe the table or graph? Are all axes labeled clearly?
7. Do figures (graphs, pictures) have descriptive titles at the bottom? Do tables have descriptive titles at the top?
8. Are the results presented in a way that is relevant to the hypothesis?
9. Is it necessary to show calculations or raw data? Could such detail be better in an appendix for the truly curious?
10. Did you avoid interpreting the results? The results section should only describe the results; there should be no analysis or interpretation of the data.
Discussion:
1. What did you find? How does that relate to your hypothesis? What does that mean to you, to the experiment, to the rest of the world? Why is it important? What might have gone wrong? (Why? How?) What went according to plan? What surprised you? What would you have changed? How would you expand the project?
2. Are the results discussed in the context of supporting or not supporting the hypothesis? One can never prove something experimentally, but one can disprove or support a hypothesis or conclusions.
3. Are the conclusions reached from the results logical and explainable?
4. Are other studies used, if needed, to compare the results of this experiment or paper with other published data? (Proper citations?)
5. Are negative results explained in the context of experimental error, confounding variables, or some other hypothesis taken from personal experience or the literature?
6. Does the discussion address the major implications of your findings?
7. Does the discussion include other possible experiments or observations that could enhance the understanding of the topic?
Literature Cited:
1. Are in-text literature references cited as (author(s) date) in text?
2. Are all the papers cited in your paper listed in correct format in the literature-cited section at the end of your paper? (There should be no papers you did not read in your literature cited.)
3. Have you cited all the papers in your literature-cited section within the body of your paper? (Hint: if you haven’t mentioned a particular article in your paper, don’t put it in your literature cited. If there were anything key or important in an article, you would have cited it.)
4. Consult a reference manual (McMillan ch. 6, esp. pp. 118-124, Keys for Writers or the APA Style Guide, http://www.apastyle.org/elecref.html) or journal articles for models.These questions were originally created by Sarah Cutler (’03) and Erin Whitehouse (’02) are taken in part from:

McMillan, Victoria, E. (2001). Writing Papers in the Biological Sciences. 3rd edition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.
Guidelines for Writing Papers in the Biological Sciences
General Notes:
1. Be concise
2. Keep verb tense consistent, especially within sections of lab reports. Active voice is much clearer than passive voice. (McMillan, pp. 65, 145-147)
3. Proofread! Tips: read paper out loud or find someone (non science folks are especially good for checking writing as separate from content) to read the paper.
4. Maintain a constant level of tone or formality. Avoid “mall speak.”
5. Words like basically, and then, hopefully, and utilize (among others) are over used and contribute little to your paper. Avoid them.
4. Consult a writing guide. Victoria McMillan’s Writing Papers in the Biological Sciences, Third Edition. (St. Martin’s, 2001) is one great source.
Hints for citing articles:
1. If there is information in your paper that you can find in an introductory textbook, you don’t need to cite it.
Ex. Don’t cite: Brassica have been bread to grow quickly. (Williams and Hill, 1986).
Do cite: In addition to their hardiness, rapid-cycling Brassica produce up to ten generations of seeds every year; this makes them ideal for selective breeding experiments (Williams and Hill, 1986).
2. Quote (and cite!) IDEAS, not another scientist’s words. You will (almost) never need to take a direct quote from an article. (See McMillan pp. 97-98)
3. If you want to use information from an article cited in something you read (i.e. something you did not read) leave a trail of breadcrumbs.
Ex. No: Plant growth and development are often unstudied in secondary level biology and general science classrooms due to lack of plant material (Crowder, et al, 1980).
Yes: Plant growth and development are often unstudied in secondary level biology and general science classrooms due to lack of plant material (Crowder, et al, 1980 in Williams and Hill, 1996).
4. If you have already mentioned the authors in the sentence, proper in text citation looks like this: Williams and Hill (1986) describe selected breeding criteria for Fast Plants.
This is the article I’m citing:
Williams, P. H., Hill, C. B., 1986. Rapid-Cycling Populations of Brassica. Science, New Series, 232 (4756): 1385-1389.

Here is the reference for Southern blotting:

Southern, E. (1975). Detection of specific sequences among DNA fragments separated by gel electrophoresis. J. Mol. Biol. 98: 503

Thanks to Hilary Alvarez for pointing out that there's an article in the Tuesday, October 7th NY Times called "A
Pregnant Mother's Diet May Turn the Genes Around" that's about how gene expression is altered through methylation

in mice. It even talks about transposons. It all fits nicely into a bunch of the stuff we've talked
about in 210.

REPRESENTATIVE LAB RESULTS

*****Selected DATA FROM LAB PROJECT #2*****

For People who need mapping data for a scalloped or notched wing mutation

(Call the mution "sc".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

cv + f -------50

+ sc + ------33

cv sc + ----- 9

+ + f -------15

cv + + ------7

+ sc f -----13

+ + + ------5

cv sc f -----5

TOTAL = 137

For People who need mapping data for a small, dark eye mutation

(Call the mution "d".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

+ cv f -------72

d + + -------63

+ + + -------- 3

d cv f --------2

+ cv + ------39

d + f -------30

d cv + -----22

+ + f ------18

TOTAL = 249

For People who need mapping data for a white eye mutation

(Call the mution "w".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

+ cv f -------33

w + + -------76

+ + + -------- 14

w cv f --------13

+ cv + ------30

w + f -------38

w cv + -----12

+ + f --------3

TOTAL = 219

REPRESENTATIVE CLASS DATA FOR

Southern Blot Autoradiograms (Project 1) (Fall, 2003)

Control Drosophila melanogaster Strains

CS Bloom (negative control)

NO BANDS

2384 = pi2(P) (positive control)

6bands:

11.5 kb, 8.5 kb, 7.5 kb, 5.0 kb, 3.0 kb, 2.8kb

4264 = Harwich (positive control)

8 bands:

10.75 kb, 8.0 kb, 6.8 kb, 5.2 kb, 4.2 kb,3.2 kb, 2.8 kb, 2.0 kb

Experimental Drosophila melanogaster Strains

*Blanchard (isolated in August, 1999)

10 bands:

9.0 kb, 8.4 kb, 7.2 kb, 5.6 kb, 4.8 kb, 4.0 kb, 2.9 kb, 2.5 kb, 1.6kb, 1.2kb

21 Woodbridge (isolated in August, 2002)

no data (Experiment did not work!)

SH 2003

8 bands:

8.6, 7.2 kb, 6.2 kb, 5.4 kb, 3.6 kb, 2.8kb, 2.3 kb, 1.9kb

Other Drosophila Species

Drosophila virilis

NO BANDS (but gel did not have a lot of DNA)

DATA FROM LAST YEAR (2002)

REPRESENTATIVE CLASS DATA FOR

Southern Blot Autoradiograms (Project 1) From Last Year! (Fall, 2002)

Control Drosophila melanogaster Strains

CS Bloom (negative control)

NO BANDS

2384 = pi2(P) (positive control)

8 bands:

7.4 kb, 6.0 kb, 4.8 kb, 4.0 kb, 2.3 kb, 1.7 kb, 1.2 kb. 0.8 kb

4264 = Harwich (positive control)

8 bands:

9.4 kb, 7.4 kb, 5.3 kb, 3.8 kb, 3.0 kb, 2.3 kb, 1.7 kb, 1.3 kb

Experimental Drosophila melanogaster Strains

*Blanchard (isolated in August, 1999)

9 bands:

9.0 kb, 7.5 kb, 6.2 kb, 4.5 kb, 3.5 kb, 2.7 kb, 2.5 kb, 1.6 kb, 1.2 kb

Blanchard 1999 Data from 2001

8 bands:

8.2 kb, 5.7 kb, 3.5 kb, 3.0 kb, 2.4 kb, 1.7 kb, 1.4 kb, 1.1 kb (The same result as in 1999 and 2000)

21 Woodbridge (isolated this August, 2002)

8 bands:

5.5 kb, 4.5 kb, 3.2 kb, 2.6 kb, 2.2 kb, 1.8 kb, 1.5 kb, 1.3 kb

South Hadley 2002 (Different from SH 2003!)

5 bands:

7.2 kb, 7.0 kb, 5.3 kb, 4.4 kb, 2.2 kb

Other Drosophila Species

Drosophila mauritiana

NO BANDS

Drosophila simulans

NO BANDS

Drosophila yakuba

NO BANDS

Drosophila virilis

NO BANDS (but gel did not have a lot of DNA)

Click here to view the PCR Movie.

Here is a great review article on transposable elements (Thanks to Jean Costello).

***For Helpful hints on writing lab reports (written by Sarah Cutler and Erin Whitehouse, scroll down [quite a long way...])

For Information about P-elements, click here: P-Elements

For information on Drosophila wing development, try this Web site!

For references to help with Drosophila eye color, try this Web page!

Also try here for eye color.

Other References Helpful for Eye Color Genetics

Beadle and Ephrussi (1936) Genetics 21: 225-247

Beadle (1937) Genetics 22: 587-611

Thanks to Viviane Callier for this article about the hypothesis that junk DNA helps repair breaks in the DNA molecule!

Thanks to Piya Sircar for this article:

Genes that make athletes
Asian News International
Washington, August 15
Australian researchers have discovered genes that can help an athlete
run faster or for a longer time than normal human beings.
According to them, a gene called "Alpha-Actinin" can improve runners

sprinting or long-distance running abilities, depending on which version
of the gene they have.
"There is increasing evidence for strong genetic influences on athletic
performance and for an evolutionary 'trade-off' between performance
traits for speed and endurance activities," the researchers who
studied athletes at Canberra's Australian Institute of Sport, a
national Olympic athlete training center, said.
The findings were reported in a paper published in the July 23 issue of
the American Journal of Human Genetics.
It was found that sprinters tend to have one version of the gene,
Alpha-Actinin-3 (ACTN3), while long-distance runners tend to have a
different version identified as ACTN2.
The researchers said that more elite sprinters possessed not one but two

copies of the Alpha-Actinin-3 gene. It creates the code for a protein
produced exclusively in "fast-twitch" muscle fibers. They are fueled
by glucose and are essential for power and speed.
"This suggests the presence of Alpha-Actinin-3 has a beneficial effect on
the function of skeletal muscle in generating forceful contractions at
high velocity, and provides an evolutionary advantage because of
increased sprint performance," they observed.
Endurance runners, on the other hand, often have two copies of ACTN2,
which creates the code for a protein produced exclusively in
"slow-twitch" muscle fibers.
Long-distance runners typically have slow-twitch muscles. Instead of
glucose, slow-twitch muscles are fueled by oxygen and are responsible
for sustained exercise.

But the presence of these genes in children is not the conclusive test for
predicting their future in sports. The study found co-relation between
genes and athletic ability, but do not necessarily indicate a cause and
effect relationship.
Still, researchers and sports-medicine doctors can learn from genetic
information that relates to athletics, said Claude Bouchard, who
annually updates his "fitness genome map", a database of genetic
research on human athletic ability.

Parasite Or Partner? Study Suggests New Role For Junk DNA

ANN ARBOR, Mich. Junk DNA is the Rodney Dangerfield of the genetics
world. It makes up nearly half of all human DNA, but many scientists
dismiss it as useless gibberish. A new study published online today from
the June 2002 issue of Nature Genetics, however, suggests that segments of
junk DNA called LINE-1 elements deserve more respect.
Conducted by scientists from the University of Michigan Medical School and
Louisiana State University, the study is the first to show in mammalian
cells that some human LINE-1, or L1, elements can jump to chromosomes with

broken strands of DNA, slip into the break and repair the damage.
Transposable L1 elements make up 17 percent of our DNA, but very little is
known about them, says John V. Moran, Ph.D., an assistant professor of
human genetics and internal medicine in the U-M Medical School, who
developed the first assay to identify mobile L1s in the human and mouse
genomes. Until now, everyone thought L1s were just intracellular parasites
in our DNA leftovers from the distant evolutionary past. The big question
in the field is: Are they still there because we cant get rid of them or
do they have a function?
L1s reproduce by using RNA and a process called reverse transcription to
make complementary DNA copies of themselves, which can jump into other DNA
sequences. Normally, L1s use an enzyme called endonuclease to cut the
genetic DNA and create a space, so they can plug themselves into the
genome.

We knew about the endonuclease pathway, says Tammy A. Morrish, a U-M
graduate student in human genetics and first author of the paper. But we
didnt know there was another mechanism that didnt require endonuclease, or
that L1s could jump into existing breaks in DNA.
Morrish tested human L1s ability to repair DNA breaks in several normal
and DNA-repair mutant cell lines derived from Chinese hamster ovary
cells. Other researchers had demonstrated the ability of human L1s to
repair DNA breaks in yeast cells, but Morrish is the first to show the
effect can occur in mammalian cells.
Since DNA damage may lead to cell death unless it is repaired, the
existence of an alternate repair pathway could be a good thing for the
host cell. The question is, whats in it for the L1?
This study brings up the question of whether L1s are just taking advantage
of DNA breaks to plug themselves into these sites or are they are being

used by the host cell to mediate the repair, says Moran. From the L1s
point of view, this gives it an alternate way of integrating into the DNA.
Because L1s are so ancient and because they sometimes carry segments of
genes with them when they jump to a new location, Moran believes they have
played an important role in human evolution by increasing genetic
diversity. He is one of only a few scientists to study L1s in the human
genome.

We have more transposable L1s in the human genome than any other species,
but we know the least about where and how they move in humans, says
Moran. We are here today either because of, or in spite of, L1s.
In future research, Morans research team will examine whether it is
possible to direct L1s to repair specific breaks in DNA, whether L1s can
be used as vectors to deliver genetic material to specific DNA locations,
and the impact of an L1 insertion on genes.

U-M researchers in the study were supported by the William M. Keck
Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Nicholas Gilbert, Ph.D.,
a U-M post-doctoral fellow in human genetics, collaborated in the
study. Other collaborators included Mark A. Batzer, Jeremy S. Myers, and
Bethaney J. Vincent from Louisiana State University; Thomas D. Stamato
from Lankenau Institute for Medical Research in Wynnewood, Penn.; and
Guillermo E. Taccioli from Boston Universitys School of Medicine. Editor's Note: The original news release can be found here.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Michigan Health System.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***For Helpful hints on writing lab reports (written by Sarah Cutler and Erin Whitehouse, scroll down)

For Information about P-elements, click here: P-Elements

For information on Drosophila wing development, try this Web site!

For references to help with Drosophila eye color, try this Web page!

Also try here for eye color.

Other References Helpful for Eye Color Genetics

Beadle and Ephrussi (1936) Genetics 21: 225-247

Beadle (1937) Genetics 22: 587-611

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPRESENTATIVE LAB RESULTS

*****Selected DATA FROM LAB PROJECT #2*****

For People who need mapping data for a scalloped or notched wing mutation

(Call the mution "sc".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

cv + f -------50

+ sc + ------33

cv sc + ----- 9

+ + f -------15

cv + + ------7

+ sc f -----13

+ + + ------5

cv sc f -----5

TOTAL = 137

For People who need mapping data for a small, dark eye mutation

(Call the mution "d".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

+ cv f -------72

d + + -------63

+ + + -------- 3

d cv f --------2

+ cv + ------39

d + f -------30

d cv + -----22

+ + f ------18

TOTAL = 249

For People who need mapping data for a white eye mutation

(Call the mution "w".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

+ cv f -------33

w + + -------76

+ + + -------- 14

w cv f --------13

+ cv + ------30

w + f -------38

w cv + -----12

+ + f --------3

TOTAL = 219

REPRESENTATIVE CLASS DATA FOR

Southern Blot Autoradiograms (Project 1) (Fall, 2002)

Control Drosophila melanogaster Strains

CS Bloom (negative control)

NO BANDS

2384 = pi2(P) (positive control)

8 bands:

7.4 kb, 6.0 kb, 4.8 kb, 4.0 kb, 2.3 kb, 1.7 kb, 1.2 kb. 0.8 kb

4264 = Harwich (positive control)

8 bands:

10.75 kb, 8.0 kb, 6.8 kb, 5.2 kb, 4.2 kb,3.2 kb, 2.8 kb, 2.0 kb

Experimental Drosophila melanogaster Strains

*Blanchard (isolated in August, 1999)

9 bands:

9.0 kb, 7.5 kb, 6.2 kb, 4.5 kb, 3.5 kb, 2.7 kb, 2.5 kb, 1.6 kb, 1.2 kb

21 Woodbridge (isolated this August, 2002)

8 bands:

5.5 kb, 4.5 kb, 3.2 kb, 2.6 kb, 2.2 kb, 1.8 kb, 1.5 kb, 1.3 kb

South Hadley (isolated this August, 2002)

5 bands:

7.2 kb, 7.0 kb, 5.3 kb, 4.4 kb, 2.2 kb

Other Drosophila Species

Drosophila mauritiana

NO BANDS

Drosophila simulans

NO BANDS

Drosophila yakuba

NO BANDS

Drosophila virilis

NO BANDS (but gel did not have a lot of DNA)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data from LAST YEAR (2001)

*Blanchard (isolated in August, 1999)

8 bands:

8.2 kb, 5.7 kb, 3.5 kb, 3.0 kb, 2.4 kb, 1.7 kb, 1.4 kb, 1.1 kb (The same result as in 1999 and 2000)

We're not the only ones interested in P-Elements! Look below:

Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:19:24 +0100
From: Louis van de Zande <L.P.W.G.M.van.de.Zande@biol.rug.nl>
To: cwoodard@MtHolyoke.edu
Cc: Audrey <A.G.J.M.Ayrinhac@biol.rug.nl>, Kuke <R.Bijlsma@biol.rug.nl>
Subject: Drosophila P-elements

Dear Craig Woodard,

In our lab we are investigating the genetic basis of ageing in
Drosophila. In order to establish optimal references and controls, we
would like to know if our strains contain P-elements. From your website

it became evident that you have a plasmid from which probes can be derived
to detect P-elements. Even more attractive would be the availability of
primers to amplify P-element fragments and do nothing with the P-element
devoid D.melanogaster genome.
My question is: can you help us to screen our strains for P-elements by
either providing us with the sequences of a P-element detecting
primer-pair or indicate how we can obtain the plasmid that contains
P-element probes.
Your help would be very much appreciated.

Yours sincerely
Louis van de Zande
Population and Evolutionary Genetics
University of Groningen
Biological Centre
P.O. Box 14
9750 AA Haren

The Netherlands

BIO 210 GENETICS AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
FALL 2001

LAB RESULTS

*****Selected DATA FROM LAB PROJECT #2*****

For People who need mapping data for a scalloped or notched wing mutation

(Call the mution "sc".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

cv + f -------50

+ sc + ------33

cv sc + ----- 9

+ + f -------15

cv + + ------7

+ sc f -----13

+ + + ------5

cv sc f -----5

TOTAL = 137

For People who need mapping data for a small, dark eye mutation

(Call the mution "d".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

+ cv f -------72

d + + -------63

+ + + -------- 3

d cv f --------2

+ cv + ------39

d + f -------30

d cv + -----22

+ + f ------18

TOTAL = 249

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Southern Blot Autoradiograms (Project 1) (FALL, 2001)

Control Drosophila melanogaster Strains

CS Bloom (negative control)

NO BANDS

2384 = pi2(P) (positive control)

9 bands:

7.5 kb, 6.5 kb, 5 kb, 3.7 kb, 3.0 kb, 1.7 kb, 1.2 kb. 0.7 kb, 0.5 kb

4264 = Harwich (positive control)

5 bands:

8.0 kb, 6.6kb, 3.7 kb, 2.0 kb, 1.5 kb

Experimental Drosophila melanogaster Strains

Blanchard (isolated in August, 1999)

8 bands:

8.2 kb, 5.7 kb, 3.5 kb, 3.0 kb, 2.4 kb, 1.7 kb, 1.4 kb, 1.1 kb (The same result as in 1999 and 2000)

14 Silver Street (isolated in August, 2000)

3 bands (sizes undetermined) (only one trial, so a good comparison to results from 2000 cannot be made)

21 Woodbridge (isolated this August)

6 bands:

8.8 kb, 5.0 kb, 3.6 kb, 1.8 kb, 1.2 kb, 0.7 kb

Other Drosophila Species

Drosophila simulans

NO BANDS

Drosophila mauritiana

NO BANDS

Results from Project 1: Screen for P-elements Session 6 (Run Gel on PCR Reaction and Isolate Probe DNA Fragment):

PCR Reaction A, with Primer 1(Forward) and Primer 2(Reverse) - One band of about 2.8 kb

PCR Reaction B, with Primer 1(Forward) and Primer 3 - One band of about 0.9 kb

Reaction A Negative Control (no template plasmid DNA) - No bands

Reaction B Negative Control (no template plasmid DNA) - No bands

Curiously, almost everybody in Room 408 successfully amplified a product with PCR Reaction A, while almost nobody in Room 410 successfully amplified a product with PCR Reaction A. Why did this happen???!!! The only things we can think of are that:

1) Rooms 408 and 410 have different spectrophotometers (though they are the same make and model).

2) Rooms 408 and 410 have different thermalcyclers (though they are the same make and model).

What do you think????

****************************************************************************************

Science resources (sampling) available at SAW Program library 109 Porter:

Moore, R. (1992). Writing to learn biology. Fort Worth: Saunders College Publishing. Call number: PE1404 M629

Penrose, A. & Katz, S. (1998). Writing in the sciences. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martin's. Call number:T11 P759

Rubens, P. (ed). (1992). Science and technical writing: A manual of
style. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Call number: T11 R891

Scientific style and format: The CBE manual for authors, editors, and
publishers. Style Manual Committee, Council of Biology Editors. 6th ed.
Call number: T11 S905.

WHO CARES ABOUT RESEARCH ON FRUIT FLIES???? CHECK OUT THIS WEB SITE!!!

Thanks for Vinsee Tang for suggesting this Web site:

http://news.go.com/extra/chromosome_991202.html

Thanks to Devaki Nambiar for the following article:

The Hindustan Times
Friday, November 19, 1999, New Delhi

Scientists close to isolating malaria genes

London (Steve Connor)

The battle against malaria, which kills about two million people a year, has
entered a new phase with the publication of the first genetic map of the
infectious microbe.

Scientists believe the map, published in the journal Nature Genetics, will
boost the search for new vaccines. However, the question of who will own the
patents on any commercial discoveries from the project is raised by the
presence of Craig Venter on the team of 15 scientists who have produced the
map.

Dr Craig Venter is engaged in the race to sequence the entire human genome and
his company, Celera Genomics, has made no secret of the fact that it wants to
patent as many genes as possible to exploit possible future commercial gains.

Malaria is caused by a blood parasite, plasmodium, which has a complicated life cycle involving the infection of both humans and its "vector" species, the
mosquito. Plasmodium goes through stages of development in its host species and
this, with its ability to develop drug resistance, has made it hard to combat.

By finding the precise sequence of genetic "letters" that make up plasmodium's
7,000 genes, scientists hope to find ways of fighting it with tailor-made drugs
and vaccines. "Once we know all the proteins the parasite makes, we'll know how
to attack it," said Dr Sharen Bowman, who works on sequencing the malaria
genome at the Sanger Centre in Cambridge. The genetic map of the most lethal
form of malaria, Plasmodium falciparum, gives scientists such as Dr Bowman a
chance to double-check the correct position of a gene on each malarial
chromosome.

Scientists hunt for genes by chopping up chromosomes into smaller, overlapping
segments. The new "optical" map is made by sticking the malaria chromosomes to
a glass slide and cutting them up in situ - a quick way of seeing the correct
sequence.

"The optical map is a completely independent way of checking that our
chromosome segments are in the right order," Dr Sharen Bowman explained.

The map was pieced together by a team from several American institutes,
including the Institute for Genomic Research in Rockville, Maryland, to which
Dr Venter is affiliated. Dr Bowman said the international consortium of
scientists is publishing the information as soon as it is discovered, which
should prevent other individuals from patenting the same data.

One of the areas of intense commercial interest and research is the hunt for
the malaria gene that has enabled the parasite to become resistant to
chloroquine, the drug that was the first line of defence against the illness.

(By arrangement with The Independent, London)

Thanks to Heather Norton for the following articles!

Cancer-Resistant Mice Bred

The Associated Press
Wednesday, October 13 1999 03:36 PM EDT
Scientists have created cancer-resistant mice by deleting certain genes
that govern the formation of blood vessels - a breakthrough that could
lead to new drugs for wiping out tumors in people.
The 57 specially bred mice were each injected with 100 million tumor
cells. Many of them didn't develop cancer at all; others grew tumors, but
they eventually shrank or didn't spread. Deleting most copies of the genes appeared to have no harmful side effects for the mice.
The finding is the latest advance in one of the most exciting and
promising areas of cancer research: angiogenesis, or blood vessel
formation. Scientists are trying to find ways to kill cancer by stopping
the growth of the blood vessels that nourish tumors.
Last year, in one of the most celebrated developments in angiogenesis
research, Dr. Judah Folkman of Harvard University reported that two
proteins, angiostatin and endostatin, caused tumors in rats to shrink or
disappear by cutting off their blood supply. Tests on people are about to
get under way.
The mice study, published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature,
involves two genes called Id1 and Id3 that were found to play a vital role
in the little-understood process of angiogenesis.
``It's a very unexpected and significant finding,'' said Luisa
Iruela-Arispe, a researcher at the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at
the University of California at Los Angeles.
One of the researchers, Robert Benezra, a cell biologist at New York's Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, said the findings could lead to
drugs that target tumors by inactivating the genes. In particular, the
findings could help scientists develop treatments that can distingish
between normal blood vessels and those sprouting from tumors.
James Pluda, a researcher at the National Cancer Institute, said: ``This
may be another piece in the puzzle which might bring us closer to better
understanding the process and therefore coming up with better therapeutics
for blocking the process.''
But scientists stressed that further research is needed before any human
applications are developed. For one thing, mice are much simpler creatures
than humans. And the cancer-resistant mice were injected with malignant
cells; they did not develop cancer naturally.
``People don't go around injecting themselves with 100 million tumor
cells,'' Benezra said. ``Rather, they develop these tumors as a result of
genetic disposition or mutation.''
Researchers are now breeding mice that develop cancer naturally. Such
experiments will help determine whether the Id genes play a role in these situations, too.
The Sloan-Kettering researchers stumbled on the role of genes in
angiogenesis while they were investigating their place in the brain
development of mouse embryos.
Each mouse has two Id1 genes and two Id3 genes - one copy of each gene is
inherited from each parent.
The researchers first tried to breed rodents lacking all four genes. But
they found that the growth of brain cells and blood vessels stopped early,
and the embryos died before birth.
Then they tried deleting three of the four genes. These mice were then
injected with breast cancer and lymphoma cells, and none developed tumors,
unlike normal mice given the same shots.
The specially bred mice also were injected with lung cancer cells and
developed tumors that failed to spread because they lacked well-developed
blood vessels.
To further test their theory, the researchers took samples from brain
cancer patients and found that they had heightened levels of proteins cancer patients and found that they had heightened levels of proteins
created by Id1 and Id3.
Because Id genes do not appear to play a role in adult development, it is
possible that any drugs that inactivate the genes will have little or no
side effects in people.
``We see them at very high levels during embryonic development, but in the
adult they're at extremely low levels,'' Benezra said. ``We have a good
chance of developing a drug that doesn't have side effects because the
protein is not expressed in adults.''
APO/Cancer-Genes/
Copyright 1999 The Associated Press.

The web site is from aol:
http://www.aol.com/mynews/news/story.adp/cat=0110&id=1999101303368656

Expert Says Mammoth Cloning Unlikely, New York Times Reports

Bloomberg News
Friday, October 29 1999 08:18 AM EDT
Washington, Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Genetic material retrieved from the
remains of frozen woolly mammoths is so fragmented that successful cloning
is unlikely, according to Dr. Alex D. Greenwood, a molecular biologist at
the American Museum of Natural History, the New York Times reported.
Scientists raised the possibility of cloning an intact 14,000 year-old male mammoth after it was discovered frozen in Siberian permafrost and
removed for further study, the paper said. Greenwood says his studies of
other well-preserved mammoths ``show you can retrieve snippets of DNA, but
that's a long way from cloning an animal,'' the Times reported.
A group of Japanese researchers reported cloning eight calves in December
from the cells of one adult cow, with an 80 percent success rate.
(N.Y. Times 10/29 A16)
For the Web site of the New York Times, enter NYTI .

A Message from the President of the Drosophila Board

Dear Fly Person,

I am writing as President of the National Drosophila Board to inform you
about the current status of the Drosophila genome sequencing project.
During the early part of November, representatives of BDGP, EDGP, FlyBase,
other members of the Drosophila community, and several experts in
bio-informatics met at Celera, in Rockville, MD. The goals were to:

1) integrate the Celera 10X shotgun sequence assembly with the BDGP/EDGP
sequence and maps,

2) annotate the sequence, most notably identify all the known transcripts
and ORFs, and

3) begin to analyze the sequence for information about chromosome
organization and gene content.

This was an unusual merger of academics and industry, which led to a
remarkable and productive synergy, thanks to the organization and efforts
of Mark Adams (Celera) and Gerry Rubin (BDGP) and the intensive work and
commitment displayed by all participants. The jobs are not yet complete,
but we can report that the sequence and the assembly are of very high
quality, and that the tools are in place to perform a more complete
analysis in the next couple of months. Much of the unannotated sequence
resulting from Celera's assembly of its whole genome shotgun data has
already been deposited in GenBank, and the rest will be in GenBank by the
end of the year. Likewise, all the BDGP and EDGP data are currently in
GenBank. The combined BDGP/EDGP/Celera assembled and annotated sequence will be released upon publication, as early as February 2000. You will be
very pleased with the results, and excited by the new avenues of
exploration that will be facilitated by this information. We are about to
enter a new and exciting time for all Drosophila biologists, and should
embrace the future without forgetting that an incredible century of
Drosophila genetics and biology brought us to this point.

Gary

*****Selected DATA FROM LAB PROJECT #2, in 2000*****

For People who need mapping data for a scalloped or notched wing mutation

(Call the mution "sc".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

cv + f -------50

+ sc + ------33

cv sc + ----- 9

+ + f -------15

cv + + ------7

+ sc f -----13

+ + + ------5

cv sc f -----5

TOTAL = 137

For People who need mapping data for a small, dark eye mutation

(Call the mution "d".)

Phenotypes of the F4 Male Progeny

+ cv f -------72

d + + -------63

+ + + -------- 3

d cv f --------2

+ cv + ------39

d + f -------30

d cv + -----22

+ + f ------18

TOTAL = 249

*****Selected DATA FROM LAB PROJECT #1, in 2000*****

Southern Blot Hybridization Data

Strain ----------------# of Bands----Band Sizes (kb)

CS Bloom (- control)-No Bands

2384 = pi2(P) (+ control)------7 Bands-----6.2, 5.2, 3.8, 3.3, 2.5, 2.0, 1.1

14 Silver Street--------5 Bands-----6.1, 4.4, 3.2, 2.1, 1.5

Blanchard --------------4 Bands----10.5, 5.4, 3.4, 2.4

PCR Data

Strain ----------------# of Bands----Band Sizes (kb)

CS Bloom (- control)-1 Band --------1.5 ---(Weird, huh? You should discuss this unexpected finding in the Discussion section of your lab report.)

2384 = pi2(P) (+ control)------7 Bands----2.6, 1.1, 1.0. 0.68, 0.66, 0.60, 0.56

14 Silver Street--------3 Bands----2.8, 1.2, 0.62

Blanchard --------------3 Bands----1.1, 0.68, 0.6