Sample information |
|
| Picture |
|
|---|---|
| Location | |
| Collection date | 09/09/2023 |
| Captive / Cultivated? | Wild-caught |
| Group | Edmund Burke School |
| Observations | Medium-size, black exoskeleton, medium mandibles on head |
| Putative identification | Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Hemiptera |
Methods |
|
| Extraction kit | DNeasy (Qiagen) |
| DNA extraction location | Abdomen |
| Single or Duplex PCR | Single Reaction |
| Gel electrophoresis system | MiniOne |
| Buffer | TBE |
| DNA stain | GelGreen |
| Gel images |
|
| Protocol notes | DNA Extraction: The arthropod was pretty easy to grind up, though removing reproductive organs was a challenge as the arthropod was hollow. No errors were made Gel Electrophoresis Arthropod CO1: slight error with pipetting, but no harm was made to the experiment. Arthropod line showed up Gel Electrophoresis Wolbachia : Lane 1 (DNA ladder), lane 2 (B1), lane 3 (B2), lane 4 (B3), lane five (B4) lane 6 (WOL+), lane 7 (WOL -), lane 8 (water) The controls were successful |
Results |
|
| Wolbachia presence | No |
| Confidence level | High |
| Explanation of confidence level | The procedure was followed very closely and there was not even a faint line present, the gel was completely Wolbachia-negative. |
| Wolbachia 16S sequence | |
| Arthropod COI sequence | Download FASTA
Download AB1
|
| Summary | The Hemiptera was found to be negative for Wolbachia. |
Sehirus cinctus
Melanoplus bruneri
Pterostichus permundus
Melanoplus Spretus
Centipede- Lithobius forficatus