Sample information

(Location of Collection)

• Found this arthropod on the cement path beside a yard. There were only grasses, no flower.
• It was resting on the cement and was barely flying or moving even when I approached to collect it.
• Collected around 3:50 pm when the temperature was around 18 degree Celcius. There was no wind and it was sunny with a little bit of humidity.
• Has black and yellow stripes with fuzzy yellow hair on thorax and abdomen and fuzzy black hair overall.

Methods

DNA Extraction: Dissected the abdomen open and scraped inner organs out. Grinded the arthropod’s organ well; this does not include exoskeleton. Liquid appeared yellow.

Gel Electropgoresis Well Lanes:

For Arthropod (CO1) PCR:
1- (empty: origianlly intended to load NEB NO551L ladder but forgot)
2- Fruit Fly
3- Centipede
4- (empty: This well was originally for another arthropod DNA sample that we couldn’t extract)
5- Bumblebee
6- Ant
7- Mosquito
8- Positive DNA extration control
9- Negative DNA extration control
10- Positive PCR/DNA control
11- Negative PCR control
12, 13, 14- (empty)

For Wolbachia (16S rRNA) PCR:
*Gel image is mirrored for a better visual.
1,2,3,4- (empty: agrose gel got damaged, so moved over and loaded from left to right)
5- Negative PCR control
6- Positive PCR/DNA control
7-Negative DNA extration control
8- Positive DNA extration control
9- Mosquito
10- Ant
11- Bumblebee
12- Centipede
13- Fruit Fly
14- NEB NO551L ladder

Analysis: For arthropod CO1 PCR, controls worked and the result can be trusted as the size and location of the bands are similar to controls. For Wolbachia PCR, negative control is contiminated as there is a band. Also, due to the damaged gel, the band of the sample is too vague and thin compared to the positive control.

Results

Negative DNA extraction control was contiminated and the agrose gel was damaged so DNA samples spreaded across the gel. The band barely shows. Therefore, the data cannot be trusted.