The following are three possible combinations of DNAcharacteristics that may be found in an individual’sgenetic profile. Using the product rule, rank each ofthese combinations of DNA characteristics from mostcommon to least common. The number after each characteristic indicates its percentage distribution in thepopulation.a. FGA 24,24 (3.6%), TH01 6,8 (8.1%), and D16S53911,12 (8.9%)b. vWA 14,19 (6.2%), D21S11 30,30 (3.9%), andD13S317 12,12 (8.5%)c. CSF1PO 9,10 (11.2%), D18S51 14,17 (2.8%), andD8S1179 17,18 (6.7%)

The following are three possible combinations of DNAcharacteristics that may be found in an individual’sgenetic profile. Using the product rule, rank each ofthese combinations of DNA characteristics from mostcommon to least common. The number after each characteristic indicates its percentage distribution in thepopulation.a. FGA 24,24 (3.6%), TH01 6,8 (8.1%), and D16S53911,12 (8.9%)b. vWA 14,19 (6.2%), D21S11 30,30 (3.9%), andD13S317 12,12 (8.5%)c. CSF1PO 9,10 (11.2%), D18S51 14,17 (2.8%), andD8S1179 17,18 (6.7%)

Human Heredity: Principles and Issues (MindTap Course List)

11th Edition

ISBN:9781305251052

Author:Michael Cummings

Publisher:Michael Cummings

Chapter14: Biotechnology And Society

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1CS: Can DNA profiling identify the source of a sample with absolute certainty? Because any two human...

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Through PCR, we have determined the PER3 genotypes for a class of students as follows: H4/H4 = 125 individuals; H4/H5 = 90 individuals and H5/H5=85 individuals. What is the frequency of the H5 allele in the class? Select only one answer. 1. 0.32 2. 0.24 3. 0.57 4. 0.19 5. 0.49 6. 0.43 7. 0.14
On the assumption that the two profiles arise from twogenetically related individuals, law enforcement agenciespursue relatives of the person whose profile is stored in theDNA database. Testing in these cases is known as familialDNA testing. Should such searches be considered scientificallyvalid or even ethical?
Through PCR, we have determined the PER3 genotypes for a class of students as follows: H4/H4 = 125 individuals; H4/H5 = 90 individuals and H5/H5=85 individuals. Considering the Hardy Weinberg equilibrium and comparing the observed and the expected number of individuals for the three genotypes, calculate the value of the Chi-square statistic. Select only one answer. 1. 14.59 2. 0.05 3. 3.84 4. 28.67 5. 22.31 6. 45.43 7. 0.50
Using the product rule, what is the total frequency of the profile, given the following genotype frequencies for each of the loci: D3S1358 = 0.04453 vWA = 0.02725 D5S818 = 0.07534 0.008406 0.0000914 0.14712 10,491 0.914208
Consider the case of a hypothetical genetic disease called WhySciEleven (WSE), an inherited disease that results to the inability to complete production of an amino acid “moduleactivity” that results in brain damage if untreated. WSE is due to a recessive allele. Given one WSE occurrence per 10,000 births. Which term in the Hardy-Weinberg equation corresponds to the frequency of individuals who have no alleles for the disease WSE? a. p b. 2pq c. p2 d. q2
Scientists at Bikini Bottoms have been investigating the genetic makeup of the organisms in this community. Use the information provided and your knowledge of genetics to answer each question. For each genotype below, indicate whether it is heterozygous (Hetz) OR homozygous (Homz). TT _____ Bb _____ DD _____ Ff _____ tt _____ dd _____ Dd _____ ff _____ Tt _____ bb _____ BB _____ FF _____ Which of the genotypes in #1 would be considered purebred? ________________________________ Which of the genotypes in #1 would be hybrids? __________________________________________
Can DNA profiling identify the source of a sample with absolute certainty? Because any two human genomes differ at about 3 million sites, no two persons (except identical twins) have the same DNA sequence. Unique identification with DNA profiling is therefore possible if enough sites of variation are examined. However, the systems used today examine only a few sites of variation. Nonetheless, even with todays technology, which uses three to five loci, a match between two DNA patterns can be considered strong evidence that the two samples came from the same source. DNA profiling in criminal cases has been a useful tool in establishing both guilt and innocence. Originally, DNA databases contained only the profiles of convicted felons. Over time, however, law enforcement agencies have expanded the collection and use of DNA profiles, and these new policies are causing controversies, once again illustrating how the availability and use of genetic technology is often ahead of consensus on how and when this technology should be used. One of these new policies is postarrest DNA collection. At this writing, 18 U.S. states as well as the federal government allow the collection of DNA samples after an arrest but before conviction. These profiles become part of the states DNA database, which is often searched for evidence in cold cases. Courts across the country have ruled for and against the use of such samples. In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the collection of DNA samples from someone who has been arrested but not convicted is unconstitutional and violates an individuals right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The case began when a DNA sample was taken from Alonzo Jay King, Jr., who was arrested in 2009 for assault. In a database search, the DNA profile matched that taken from a 2003 unsolved rape. Based on the results of the database search, the man was sentenced to life in prison. The rape conviction was reversed, and the case was sent back to a lower court. As a result, some 16,000 DNA profiles collected postarrest but preconviction since 2009 cannot be used pending appeal of this decision. Before the court decision, postarrest DNA profiles were used in 65 arrests that resulted in 34 convictions, with an additional 12 cases pending. Supporters of postarrest DNA profiling claim that taking a DNA sample by a cheek swab is noninvasive and no different from taking someones fingerprints. Opponents claim that because DNA samples can be used to determine much more than a DNA profile, they are a threat to privacy, and that because minorities are more likely to be arrested, the practice is discriminatory. What if you learned that law enforcement officials were saving the DNA sample for use in tests that might be developed in the future?
Can DNA profiling identify the source of a sample with absolute certainty? Because any two human genomes differ at about 3 million sites, no two persons (except identical twins) have the same DNA sequence. Unique identification with DNA profiling is therefore possible if enough sites of variation are examined. However, the systems used today examine only a few sites of variation. Nonetheless, even with todays technology, which uses three to five loci, a match between two DNA patterns can be considered strong evidence that the two samples came from the same source. DNA profiling in criminal cases has been a useful tool in establishing both guilt and innocence. Originally, DNA databases contained only the profiles of convicted felons. Over time, however, law enforcement agencies have expanded the collection and use of DNA profiles, and these new policies are causing controversies, once again illustrating how the availability and use of genetic technology is often ahead of consensus on how and when this technology should be used. One of these new policies is postarrest DNA collection. At this writing, 18 U.S. states as well as the federal government allow the collection of DNA samples after an arrest but before conviction. These profiles become part of the states DNA database, which is often searched for evidence in cold cases. Courts across the country have ruled for and against the use of such samples. In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the collection of DNA samples from someone who has been arrested but not convicted is unconstitutional and violates an individuals right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The case began when a DNA sample was taken from Alonzo Jay King, Jr., who was arrested in 2009 for assault. In a database search, the DNA profile matched that taken from a 2003 unsolved rape. Based on the results of the database search, the man was sentenced to life in prison. The rape conviction was reversed, and the case was sent back to a lower court. As a result, some 16,000 DNA profiles collected postarrest but preconviction since 2009 cannot be used pending appeal of this decision. Before the court decision, postarrest DNA profiles were used in 65 arrests that resulted in 34 convictions, with an additional 12 cases pending. Supporters of postarrest DNA profiling claim that taking a DNA sample by a cheek swab is noninvasive and no different from taking someones fingerprints. Opponents claim that because DNA samples can be used to determine much more than a DNA profile, they are a threat to privacy, and that because minorities are more likely to be arrested, the practice is discriminatory. Would you object if you were arrested for a minor offense, such as a traffic violation, and ordered to provide a DNA sample?
Can DNA profiling identify the source of a sample with absolute certainty? Because any two human genomes differ at about 3 million sites, no two persons (except identical twins) have the same DNA sequence. Unique identification with DNA profiling is therefore possible if enough sites of variation are examined. However, the systems used today examine only a few sites of variation. Nonetheless, even with todays technology, which uses three to five loci, a match between two DNA patterns can be considered strong evidence that the two samples came from the same source. DNA profiling in criminal cases has been a useful tool in establishing both guilt and innocence. Originally, DNA databases contained only the profiles of convicted felons. Over time, however, law enforcement agencies have expanded the collection and use of DNA profiles, and these new policies are causing controversies, once again illustrating how the availability and use of genetic technology is often ahead of consensus on how and when this technology should be used. One of these new policies is postarrest DNA collection. At this writing, 18 U.S. states as well as the federal government allow the collection of DNA samples after an arrest but before conviction. These profiles become part of the states DNA database, which is often searched for evidence in cold cases. Courts across the country have ruled for and against the use of such samples. In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the collection of DNA samples from someone who has been arrested but not convicted is unconstitutional and violates an individuals right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The case began when a DNA sample was taken from Alonzo Jay King, Jr., who was arrested in 2009 for assault. In a database search, the DNA profile matched that taken from a 2003 unsolved rape. Based on the results of the database search, the man was sentenced to life in prison. The rape conviction was reversed, and the case was sent back to a lower court. As a result, some 16,000 DNA profiles collected postarrest but preconviction since 2009 cannot be used pending appeal of this decision. Before the court decision, postarrest DNA profiles were used in 65 arrests that resulted in 34 convictions, with an additional 12 cases pending. Supporters of postarrest DNA profiling claim that taking a DNA sample by a cheek swab is noninvasive and no different from taking someones fingerprints. Opponents claim that because DNA samples can be used to determine much more than a DNA profile, they are a threat to privacy, and that because minorities are more likely to be arrested, the practice is discriminatory. What are your thoughts on the collection and use of postarrest DNA profiles?
How to find any evidence of cantamination or degradation of DNA in the DNA profiles you examined? how important is the detabase that is used to determine allele frequencies in DNA profiling cases
After doing PCR in several labs, 29 homozygous large, 62 heterozygotes, and 9 homozygous small bands were obtained. What is the frequency of the small allele
Which of the following pairs of sequences would be considered different alleles in DNA profiling? a) ATGAATTCGG; ATGAAATCGG b) ATGAATTCGG; TACTTACTTACT c) GAAGAAGAA; GAAGAAGAAGAA d) AATAATAATAAT; AATTAATTAATT