What is one important advantage of using environmental DNA (eDNA), instead of traditional field-based capture techniques, to study species distributions? For a given population density, eDNA has a higher probability of detecting a species if it is present. By looking at telomere length on the chromosomes found in an environmental DNA sample, researchers can gather information about the age distribution of organisms in a population. By looking at epigenetic marks on an environmental DNA sample, researchers can gather information about the health of the organisms in a population. All of the above

What is one important advantage of using environmental DNA (eDNA), instead of traditional field-based capture techniques, to study species distributions? For a given population density, eDNA has a higher probability of detecting a species if it is present. By looking at telomere length on the chromosomes found in an environmental DNA sample, researchers can gather information about the age distribution of organisms in a population. By looking at epigenetic marks on an environmental DNA sample, researchers can gather information about the health of the organisms in a population. All of the above

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

What is one important advantage of using environmental DNA (eDNA), instead of traditional field-based capture techniques, to study species distributions? 1.) For a given population density and sampling effort, eDNA has a higher probability of detecting a species if it is present. 2.) By looking at telomere length on the chromosomes found in an environmental DNA sample, researchers can gather information about the age distribution of organisms in a population. 3.) By looking at epigenetic marks on an environmental DNA sample, researchers can gather information about the health of the organisms in a population. 4.) All of the above
What is one important advantage of using environmental DNA (eDNA), instead of traditional field-based capture techniques, to study species distributions? 1)For a given population density and sampling effort, eDNA has a higher probability of detecting a species if it is present. 2)By looking at telomere length on the chromosomes found in an environmental 3)DNA sample, researchers can gather information about the age distribution of organisms in a population. 4)By looking at epigenetic marks on an environmental DNA sample, researchers can gather information about the health of the organisms in a population. 5)All of the above
The genetics research lab has sequenced a genomic region with 1000000 basepair of an unknown species. Consider that there is a difference between each pair of these sequences of about 200 basepairs. There is a mutation rate of 1x10^-6 and the generation time is 10 yrs. What is the effective population size of the species? Find the coalescent time.
Neutral regions of a species’ genome that are distant from any selected sites have apairwise diversity (π) of 0.01. Other regions of the genome have reduced genetic variation,and selective sweeps could be responsible for the reduction. Assume that selective sweepshappen at a rate of 10^-10 per bp, and they take 500 generations to reach fixation. Therecombination rate in regions where selective sweeps might occur is 10^-8 per bp. Theeffective population size of the species is 10^5. A. Find the expected genetic diversity (? per bp) in regions where selective sweepsmight be occurring.B. Find the deleterious mutation rate (per bp) that would be required to produce anequivalent reduction in genetic diversity as a result of background selection (BGS)?Assume the same recombination rate as above. Lastly, distinguish between selective sweeps or BGS being responsible for the reduction in genetic diversity
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. What are your thoughts on the collection and use of postarrest DNA profiles?
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?
n class we investigated the reason cystic fibrosis is maintained in the human population in higher frequency than we expected given the deleterious effects of being homozygous at the CFTR gene. We calculated the actual mutation rate of the CFTR gene to be 6.7 x 10-7. The mutation rate expected under mutation-selection balance was 4 x 10-4. What is the most plausible explanation as to why cystic fibrosis is maintained in the human population at a higher frequency than we expect? a. Negative selection against the CFTR deleterious alleles is too weak to eliminate the alleles from the human population. b. Positive selection for the CFTR deleterious alleles is likely occurring in response to some other selective pressure in the human population, possibly resistance to typhoid fever. c. The CFTR gene has an exceedingly low mutation rate causing humans to have no genetic variation at that gene. d. The CFTR gene has an exceedingly high mutation rate and that is…
Genetic Recombination is a significant contributor to population variation. In 100-250 words, explain how recombination happens and how it promotes variation within a species.
Taita thrush is an endangered bird endemic to Kenya. Galbusera and colleagues genotyped Taita thrush individuals from three populations at microsatellite markers. You have a museum specimen, and you want to determine which population it most likely to came from. You determine that the museum specimen is homozygous for two microsatellite alleles (A₁ and B₁). The frequencies of each allele in each population are shown in the table below. Population Chawia Mbololo Allele A₁ 0.6471 0.7063 0.6204 Allele B₁ 0.2917 0.1863 0.4000 Ngangao What is the probability that your individual comes from each of the three populations?
"Ancestry tests" are sold by many companies. There are significant limitations to these tests. Why is this the case? High rates of gene flow between populations reduce the reliability with which any sequence can demonstrate membership in one particular population. Evaluating too few genetic loci, of which just a small number happen to be similar, can lead to the conclusion that individuals are much more genetically similar than they actually are. A DNA match between two individuals living today is not a match with an ancestor. Rather, it suggests that the two people may have inherited the DNA sequence from a common ancestor. all of these are limitations to "Ancestry tests" O High genetic variation among individuals within most populations makes it difficult to identify specific sequences that can reliably indicate membership in a population.
Figure 18-22 shows 10 haplotypes from a population before a selective sweep and another 10 haplotypes many generations later after a selective sweep has occurred for this chromosomal region. There are 11 loci defining each haplotype, including one with a red allele that was the target of selection. In the figure, two loci are designated as A and B. These loci each have two alleles: one black and the other gray. Calculate the linkage disequilibriumparameter (D) between A and B, both before and after the selective sweep. What effect has the selective sweep had on the level of linkage disequilibrium?