Sample information |
|
| Picture |
|
|---|---|
| Location | |
| Collection date | 05/20/2026 |
| Captive / Cultivated? | Wild-caught |
| Group | Winston Knoll Collegiate |
| Observations |
|
| Putative identification | Arthropoda Chilopoda Lithobiomorpha Lithobiidae Lithobius Lithobius forficatus |
Methods |
|
| Extraction kit | Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit |
| DNA extraction location | Rear half |
| Single or Duplex PCR | Single Reaction |
| Gel electrophoresis system | MiniPCR's BlueGel |
| Buffer | 1X TBE |
| DNA stain | SeeGreen |
| Gel images |
|
| Protocol notes | DNA Extraction: Dissected and cut it in half. Grinded the rear half well; this does not include exoskeleton. Liquid appeared purple. Gel Electropgoresis Well Lanes: For Arthropod (CO1) PCR: For Wolbachia (16S rRNA) PCR: 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 appears to be smudged. |
Results |
|
| Wolbachia presence | No |
| Confidence level | Low |
| Explanation of confidence level | Negative DNA extraction control was contiminated and the agrose gel was damaged so DNA samples spreaded across the gel. Seems like the DNA band of bumblebee invaded the well, showing a vague, small band on the lane. Therefore, the data cannot be trusted. |
| Wolbachia 16S sequence | |
| Arthropod COI sequence |
|
| Summary | The Lithobius forficatus was found to be negative for Wolbachia. |

(Location of Collection)
Fruitfly – MJAR
Ant – MJAR
Mosquito – MJAR
Bumblebee – MJAR