Post by karismakigers on Jan 20, 2009 18:52:31 GMT -5
I thought I would start a new thread about some of the tools used in genetic testing.
Phylogenetic trees or dendrograms are only as good as the information you plug into them. When we did our studies in the university, we were reminded that our data was only as good as our "question", our techniques and our available tools.
I'm going to over-simplify this whole thing (I'm sure the science majors will be laughing at this post) When you do genetic studies you essentially unzip DNA strands into two strings with base pairs on it. Remember ATCGATCGATCG? Anyway, you have probes which seek out specific patterns in the base pairs. The probes available in 1980s are less defining then the ones available in the 1990s, which are less defining then the ones available today. Each decade bring more probes that give you more definition in your study/analysis. The probes available in 1980s got you to the state. The probes in the 1990s got you to a county within that state. Todays probes probably have you to a zip code, perhaps even a quadrant of the town. When we get to probes that can get us to the neighborhood, we will really be able to do incredible studies with fine detail. Anyway, the probe is looking for a particular pattern in the base pairs, lets say AAATC. Where ever it finds that exact sequence in the DNA, it is to cut the string/DNA AAATCGC would be cut into AAATC & GC. AATCGTC would not be cut as it is missing the extra A base. So, this probe is mixed with the DNA, which cuts it into millions of pieces. This is then amplified into a million more pieces using Ecoli. Those pieces are then mixed with a dye tag. It is placed in a gel, in solution and zapped. The distance that each sample travels in the gel is measured and entered into a computer program which then gives you a value. I am way oversimplying this, but essentially this is it. The values are then compared to each other and a phylogenetic tree or dendrogram is created from this data.
Dendrograms are are subject to revision as additional data become available. This is a given. As probes become more specific, the answer because more specific.
The Dendrograms for both the Kiger and the Sulphurs used blood group markers. In today's research world, blood typing is very outdated technology. In fact, Dr. Cothran is no longer using it.
I know that samples were taken during the 2007 Kiger round up and that KMA raised $$$ for testing. Do we know the status of that testing and what methods they were going to use?
Jillian
Phylogenetic trees or dendrograms are only as good as the information you plug into them. When we did our studies in the university, we were reminded that our data was only as good as our "question", our techniques and our available tools.
I'm going to over-simplify this whole thing (I'm sure the science majors will be laughing at this post) When you do genetic studies you essentially unzip DNA strands into two strings with base pairs on it. Remember ATCGATCGATCG? Anyway, you have probes which seek out specific patterns in the base pairs. The probes available in 1980s are less defining then the ones available in the 1990s, which are less defining then the ones available today. Each decade bring more probes that give you more definition in your study/analysis. The probes available in 1980s got you to the state. The probes in the 1990s got you to a county within that state. Todays probes probably have you to a zip code, perhaps even a quadrant of the town. When we get to probes that can get us to the neighborhood, we will really be able to do incredible studies with fine detail. Anyway, the probe is looking for a particular pattern in the base pairs, lets say AAATC. Where ever it finds that exact sequence in the DNA, it is to cut the string/DNA AAATCGC would be cut into AAATC & GC. AATCGTC would not be cut as it is missing the extra A base. So, this probe is mixed with the DNA, which cuts it into millions of pieces. This is then amplified into a million more pieces using Ecoli. Those pieces are then mixed with a dye tag. It is placed in a gel, in solution and zapped. The distance that each sample travels in the gel is measured and entered into a computer program which then gives you a value. I am way oversimplying this, but essentially this is it. The values are then compared to each other and a phylogenetic tree or dendrogram is created from this data.
Dendrograms are are subject to revision as additional data become available. This is a given. As probes become more specific, the answer because more specific.
The Dendrograms for both the Kiger and the Sulphurs used blood group markers. In today's research world, blood typing is very outdated technology. In fact, Dr. Cothran is no longer using it.
I know that samples were taken during the 2007 Kiger round up and that KMA raised $$$ for testing. Do we know the status of that testing and what methods they were going to use?
Jillian
