Sample information |
|
| Picture |
|
|---|---|
| Location | |
| Collection date | 09/18/2023 |
| Captive / Cultivated? | Wild-caught |
| Group | Edmund Burke School |
| Observations | Small head, small abdomen, large thorax, 2 antenna, 2 wings, 4 legs, gray-ish black |
| Putative identification | Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Blattodea |
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: Although there were no mistakes in our extraction process it took a lengthy amount of time to crush down all of our arthropods as some were in big chunks PCR: Every lane in our DNA ladder besides water was positive for the arthropod gene. Only 1 band was highlighted which was C#1 meaning that arthropod tested positive for the wolbachia gene. No mistakes were made during the PCR process and our controls worked well.
|
Results |
|
| Wolbachia presence | Yes |
| Confidence level | High |
| Explanation of confidence level | Our confidence level is about halfway since we were very precise with every measurement and made sure to never cross contaminate. Although we didn’t make any mistakes the band infected with wolbachia was light meaning there is possibility our arthropod is not actually infected. |
| Wolbachia 16S sequence | |
| Arthropod COI sequence | Download AB1
|
| Summary | The Blattodea was found to be postive for Wolbachia. |
Sehirus cinctus
Melanoplus bruneri
Pterostichus permundus
Melanoplus Spretus
Centipede- Lithobius forficatus