Sample information

Methods

The results of the my sample and the new sample are the same, except for the fact that in the new PCR test there is one sample less. That is because there was not enough DNA material left after the first PCR test for the second one. Since there was not enough DNA extract, it was imposible to get a new sequence.

It is worth to mention that that sample (3B) had the strongest results in the first PCR test and it is a pity that the amount of DNA extract was too little to be able to do a second test. 3B was tested positive for Arthropode and Wolbachia. 1B, 1V had absolutely no results and 2V was tested positive for Arhtropode only.

In comparison, the first and second test had the same results which probably indicates that the filling in into the moulds in the gel had to be done the same, most likely correctly. What could have been done better is to increase the amount of DNA extract to have enough for the second test but since we did not know about that, I would not really count that as a “mistake”.

Results

The very strong and clear result in the first test of 3B gives me the confidence that the result is trustworthy and that 3B is in fact Wolbachia positive. Other than that, the results were the same in both tests.
What makes me question my security is the fact that 1B and 1V were not positive for either of the two aspects, Arthropode and Wolbachia.

The graph that I got from using SnapGene Viewer to analyse the trace data from my own sample showed me that the results are quite good. The quality of the graph is very good, with little to no outliers (bases with a quality lower than 40) gives me a better sence of security and confidence to assume that the sample is reliable.