Hybridization of Sclerocactus glaucus and Sclerocactus parviflorus By Natalie Murrow 1 and Erryn Schneider 1 Mentored by Anna Schwabe 2 Frontiers of Science.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Biodiversity.
Advertisements

Saving Species One at a Time
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). PCR produces billions of copies of a specific piece of DNA from trace amounts of starting material. (i.e. blood, skin.
Recombinant DNA technology
Yaron Fireizen, Vinay Rao, Lacy Loos, Nathan Butler, Dr. Julie Anderson, Dr. Evan Weiher ▪ Biology Department ▪ University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire From.
13-2 Manipulating DNA.
Start-up for Wednesday, January 5, 2011 Answer the following questions: 1.Identify and compare the two types of selective breeding. 2.Relate genetic variation.
Natalie Murrow and Erryn Schneider FSI 2011 at The University of Northern Colorado.
DNA Technology. Biotechnology The use or alteration of cells or biological molecules for specific applications Transgenics Transgenic “changed genes”
Zachary Bendiks. Jonathan Eisen  UC Davis Genome Center  Lab focus: “Our work focuses on genomic basis for the origin of novelty in microorganisms (how.
Simulated Lab Relationships & Biodiversity
DNA Forensics. DNA Fingerprinting - What is It? Use of molecular genetic methods that determine the exact genotype of a DNA sample in a such a way that.
DNA Technology- Cloning, Libraries, and PCR 17 November, 2003 Text Chapter 20.
KEYS Lab Training DNA Barcoding: Identification of Species
Genetic Engineering.
10.1 – what Is Biodiversity?.
DNA FINGERPRINTS.
The Clone Age Human Genome Project Recombinant DNA Gel Electrophoresis DNA fingerprints
Genomic walking (1) To start, you need: -the DNA sequence of a small region of the chromosome -An adaptor: a small piece of DNA, nucleotides long.
Saving the Endangered South Florida Slash Pines (Pinus elliottii var. densa) ---- A study of Genetic Variations of Two Slash Pine Populations Super Awesome.
DNA FINGERPRINTS. No two people in the world have the same DNA (except Identical twins) A majority of DNA is actually the same for all humans. About 0.10.
Module 1 Section 1.3 DNA Technology
13-1 Changing the Living World
Genetics 6: Techniques for Producing and Analyzing DNA.
Human awareness.  M16.1 Know that the DNA can be extracted from cells  Genetic engineering and /or genetic modification have been made possible by isolating.
Simulated Lab Relationships & Biodiversity
Relationships & Biodiversity
Researchers use genetic engineering to manipulate DNA. Section 2: DNA Technology K What I Know W What I Want to Find Out L What I Learned.
A program of ITEST (Information Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers) funded by the National Science Foundation Background Session #5 Polymerase.
KEY CONCEPT Biotechnology relies on cutting DNA at specific places.
Human Genomics. Writing in RED indicates the SQA outcomes. Writing in BLACK explains these outcomes in depth.
Biology Chapter 9 & Honors Biology Chapter 13 Frontiers Of Biotechnology.
FOOTHILL HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT Chapter 13 Genetic Engineering Section 13-2 Manipulating DNA.
Sequencing of the 1 st Intron: 30 DNA samples: (15 from 1997 & 15 from 2004) Amplified 3 B. rapa FLC genes of the 1 st intron using PCR Visualized DNA.
Gene Technologies and Human ApplicationsSection 3 Section 3: Gene Technologies in Detail Preview Bellringer Key Ideas Basic Tools for Genetic Manipulation.
Have you ever been sitting in your room at night thinking to yourself “Wow it’s really dark in here, I wish I had a night light, but the ones you plug.
Higher Human Biology Unit 1 Human Cells KEY AREA 5: Human Genomics.
KEY CONCEPT DNA sequences of organisms can be changed.
13-2: Manipulating DNA Biology 2. Until very recently breeders could not change the DNA of the plants/animals they were breeding Scientists use DNA structure.
Population Structure High population divergence at the state level Populations from western Indiana genetically differed from the BONWR population Genetic.
AMPLIFYING DNA A.Recombinant DNA B.Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) (animation)
Title: Studying whole genomes Homework: learning package 14 for Thursday 21 June 2016.
Using DNA Barcode to Identify Endangered Species Manhattan Center for Science and Mathematics 1, Hostos Lincoln Academy of Science 2, American Museum of.
15.2 Recombinant DNA. Copying DNA – How do scientists copy the DNA of living organisms? –The first step in using the polymerase chain reaction method.
Unidentified Flora of the Upper Peconic River Authors: Angela Blangiforti, Theresa Blangiforti Sabrina Sauerwald, Edward Spagnuolo Teachers: Robert Bolen,
Plant Biodiversity in the Peconic River Methods ●First, 20 leaf samples from the Peconic River Otis Pike Preserve were collected. All the samples are from.
Genetic Diversity Of Freshwater Snails in The Peconic River Using the DNA Barcoding Method ●Biodiversity refers to the amount of genetic diversity in ecosystems.
Testing the Biodiversity of Terrestrial Earthworms around Argyle
Biodiversity of Seaweed on Long Island
DNA Forensics.
Biotechnology.
DNA Fingerprinting (Profiling)
Identifying Species In The Peconic River Using DNA Barcoding Method
DNA Technology Ch 13.
copying & sequencing DNA
Biodiversity of Ants: DNA Barcode of Formicidae Collected in Two Different Locations Relative to Pollution Funded by the Thompson Family Foundation Authors:
the manipulation of living organisms for human use Chapter 13
Rachel Bautzmann, Mentor: Dr
Simulated Lab Relationships & Biodiversity
Simulated Lab Relationships & Biodiversity
The student is expected to: (6H) describe how techniques such as DNA fingerprinting, genetic modifications, and chromosomal analysis are used to study.
Copyright Pearson Prentice Hall
DNA and the Genome Key Area 8a Genomic Sequencing.
Simulated Lab Relationships & Biodiversity
Simulated Lab Relationships & Biodiversity
DNA Profiling Vocabulary
Authors: Lauren Aslami3 and Sabrina Li3
Identification of New Invasive Species in the Peconic River
Biodiversity in the Peconic and Forge River
DNA Barcoding of Ground Plants in Prospect Park
Presentation transcript:

Hybridization of Sclerocactus glaucus and Sclerocactus parviflorus By Natalie Murrow 1 and Erryn Schneider 1 Mentored by Anna Schwabe 2 Frontiers of Science Institute , School of Biological Sciences 2 University of Northern Colorado Abstract There is concern that two species of cactus, Sclerocactus glaucus and Sclerocactus parviflorus, are hybridizing. Sclerocactus glaucus is a small cactus native to Colorado and is listed as threatened under the endangered species act. (U.S fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). Populations of S. glaucus may still be declining although no complete inventory data is available (The Center for Plant Conservation, 2010). Hybridization can have potentially negative effects on less common species such as S. glaucus. This study will look at genetic microsatellites to determine if S. glaucus and S. parviflorus are hybridizing. Genetic data has been gathered from samples of S. glaucus and S. parviflorus from 35 unique populations in the Grand Junction area by the Denver Botanic Gardens. Preliminary studies have been conducted on nine populations of S. glaucus and four populations of S. parviflorus. The results from this study indicate hybridization between the two species although more data is needed. Introduction Sclerocactus glaucus, commonly known as the Colorado hookless cactus, is an endangered species (Recovery Outline, 2010), and hybridization with Sclerocactus parviflorus would contaminate the gene pool, leaving few if any genetically pure S. glaucus in the wild. This would lead to an inability to save it from other threats because the species would have essentially disappeared. The purpose of this study is to determine if the two species are hybridizing and, if they are, whether there are genetically pure populations of S. glaucus so that scientists and conservationists can find and conserve them (Schwabe, Ramp-Neale, & McGlaughlin, 2011). An additional goal of this study is to learn more about the two species, finding out not only if they are hybridizing but where the populations come from and what we can do to stop the hybridization and conserve S. glaucus (Schwabe 2011a). It is hypothesized that S. parviflorus is hybridizing with S. glaucus. This is believed to be the case due to various changes in the genetic code as well as the appearance of populations S. glaucus that make them different from other populations. Because S. parviflorus is both closely related to S. glaucus and lives in the same range, it is very possible that the changes are due to S. parviflorus hybridizing with certain populations of S. glaucus (Recovery Outline, 2010). The genetic changes of S. glaucus reflect the genome of S. parviflorus, supporting the hypothesis further (Schwabe, 2011a). S. glaucus is an important part of Colorado’s biodiversity. But being endangered, there are many threats that may force it from its place in the ecosystem, such as illegal collection of specimens or oil and gas development (Recovery Outline, 2010). One of the most pressing threats is the possible hybridization of S. parviflorus with S. glaucus (2011 Colorado Native, 2011). If S. parviflorus genes are infiltrating populations of S. glaucus, as is believed to be the case, then S. glaucus will effectively go extinct (Schwabe, 2011a). Therefore, it is very important to find out if the two species are, in fact, hybridizing, so that this rare Colorado species can be saved from extinction. Results Because the study was not completed at the time of this poster being written, there are only preliminary results to present. Anna Schwabe (2011a) compared two populations of S. glaucus in a preliminary study, one isolated across a river and the other nearby two populations of S. parviflorus. The population that was not isolated showed more genetic similarity on nine loci to the populations of S. parviflorus than to the isolated S. glaucus. The full study will compare 15 loci on 792 different individuals from 35 distinct populations (Schwabe 2011b) to determine whether they truly are hybridizing. Sclerocactus glaucus being collected References Text: Recovery outline for the Colorado hookless cactus. (2010, April). Retrieved from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: cactus_recovery%20outline_Apr% pdf Schwabe, A. (2011a, June 20). Sclerocactus glaucus hybridization. Reading presented at UNC Plant Population Genetics Lab, Greeley, CO. Schwabe, A. (2011b, July 19). The process of sequencing and comparing DNA. Address presented at UNC Plant Population Genetics Lab, Greely, CO. Schwabe, A., Ramp-Neale, J., & McGlaughlin, M. E. (2011, July). Analysis of nuclear DNA from S. glaucus and S. parviflorus to determine the level of directionality and hybridization between these two species. Poster session presented at Botany 2011, St Lewis, MO. Abstract retrieved from: 2011.botanyconference.org/engine/search/index.php?func=detail&aid=292 Science plan for McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area. (2010, September). Retrieved from: File.dat/McInnis%20Canyons%20Science%20Plan.pdf Sclerocactus parviflorus. (n.d.). Retrieved from Flora of North America website: Colorado Native Plant Society grant recipients. (2011). Retrieved from Colorado Native Plant Society website: Pictures: Erryn (left) and Natalie (right) extracting DNA Grinding samples with liquid nitrogen Conclusion The hypothesis that S. glaucus and S. parviflorus are hybridizing is supported by the preliminary data. Because the population of S. glaucus that was not isolated was more similar to the S. parviflorus than the S. glaucus population that was, it is likely that the population of S. glaucus and the populations of S. parviflorus are hybridizing. This data is all preliminary, however. This correlation by no means conclusive, but it does give incentive to continue with testing. Acknowledgements Thanks so much to our general sponsors, Space Connections Inc. for Natalie and The FSI Alumni of 1979 for Erryn, for giving us the opportunity to attend this wonderful and enriching program. Thank you also to our research sponsors, The Edward Madigan Foundation for Natalie and The Kinder Morgan Foundation for Erryn, for sponsoring our research and allowing us to help with this project. We would also like to thank Lori Ball for organizing FSI and for making this entire program happen. None of this would be here without you. Thank you to our teachers, Nick, Nathan, Abby, and Zabedah, for teaching us so much through out the course of the program and helping our research, writing, and science skills grow. Also, thank you so much to Anna Schwabe, our research mentor, who took us on and taught us a lot about DNA and working in a lab. We loved working with you, and we learned so much! Procedure DNA was extracted using the Qaigen DNeasy DNA extraction kit from samples of both S. glaucus and S. parviflorus and 2 µl of the sample were run on a gel to show the extraction was successful. This was the only portion of the procedure that the two of us participated in. The rest of the process is extensive and will take a long time to fully complete. Following extraction, a microsatellite library was made. A microsatellite is a repeating section of DNA (e.g. ATATATAT), which is highly variable and also quite common, allowing the specific genetic sequence to be compared and relationships to be found. To create the library, the DNA was cut up with restriction enzymes and mixed with chemo luminescent tags of nucleotide repeats that are in a solution. The tags attached to the microsatellite regions, allowing for the microsatellite to be identified and sent out to be sequenced. A primer was then developed from the microsatellite sequences to amplify the microsatellite region. The DNA was then diluted and replicated using the primers in a PCR (polymerase chain reaction). These fragments were then compared to determine relationships between them. Incubating samples during extraction A successful DNA extraction of S. glaucus from the Cactus Park population S. glaucus sample Labeled tubes for extraction Centrifuge with samples Space Connections, Inc. The FSI Alumni of 1979 The Edward Madigan Foundation