Sample information

(Location of Collection)

• Found this arthropod on a tree on the field behind the school.
• Pinched the arthropod from the tree where there were colonies of them.
• Collected around 10:30 am when the temperature was around 23 degree Celcius. It was sunny and humid with some winds.
• Appears dark red under the light.

Methods

DNA Extraction: Dissected the abdomen off from the thorax and grinded the abdomen well, including exoskeleton. Liquid appeared transparent.

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 appears to be smudged.

Results

Negative DNA extraction control was contiminated and the agrose gel was damaged so DNA samples spreaded across the gel. The band is the clearest and the thickest compared to other bands but it still looks smudged. Therefore, the data cannot be fully trusted.