Sample information |
|
| Picture |
|
|---|---|
| Location | |
| Collection date | 04/20/2026 |
| Captive / Cultivated? | Wild-caught |
| Group | Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology |
| Observations | Found beneath bark of rotting tree stump on a sunny warm day at around 9:30 am. |
| Putative identification | Arthropoda |
Methods |
|
| Extraction kit | DNeasy (Qiagen) blood and tissue kit |
| DNA extraction location | |
| Single or Duplex PCR | Single Reaction |
| Gel electrophoresis system | MiniPCR |
| Buffer | TBE |
| DNA stain | SYBR Safe |
| Gel images |
|
| Protocol notes | DNA Extraction: I used a pestle and grains of sand to crush the arthropod. The entire insect was used as it was less than 2mm. Sample: My sample 152 was the adult termite 2. Gel Electrophoresis Lanes CO1/Wsp: 1- blank 2- termite 151 3- termite 152 (this specimen) 4- termite 153 5- blank 6- ladder 7- positive control Drosophila 8- negative control Drosophila 9- positive control DNA 10- water 11-13- blank Analysis: CO1: The bands for the termites were all the same length, which confirms that they are the same species. Furthermore, all of our three controls turned out as expected. Wsp: None of our samples had clear bands, and only our positive control Drosophila did not work. |
Results |
|
| Wolbachia presence | No |
| Confidence level | Medium |
| Explanation of confidence level | Our confidence level is medium all of our negative controls worked, which prevent false positives. However, our positive control DNA for Wsp did not work, which means that it could possibly be a false negative, and this decreases our confidence. This means that our samples might potentially have Wolbachia but it did not show up in the gel. |
| Wolbachia 16S sequence | |
| Arthropod COI sequence | Download AB1
|
| Summary | The Arthropoda was found to be negative for Wolbachia. |


Centipede – MJAR
Fruitfly – MJAR
Ant – MJAR
Mosquito – MJAR
Bumblebee – MJAR