Poll: When Would An Announcement Of e-DNA Positive For Sasquatch Be Made?

[David NC]

33 minutes ago, WSA said:

I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 20 years or so there might not be a hand-held, portable DNA reader for the field

 

WSA maybe sooner than you think.  https://www.minipcr.com/molecular-biology/portable-pcr-testing-the-minipcr-for-dna-sequencing-in-the-field/

[norseman]

42 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

I was thinking the only way I'd go to the cost of testing is if I already knew exactly what I had with 100% certainty it was bigfoot so that the question is not "what is the sample", but rather "what is bigfoot?"   I had not thought about ancestry or 23andme .. those are comparatively low cost ... very creative ideas!  Awesome.

 

I do not think I'd have a scat sample done.   That seems like a "later" step after existence is proven.   While a scat sample would have epithelial cells, it would also have DNA from food sources and GI tract organisms.   I think it would be pretty hard to establish existence of a new species with only that DNA to work from.   Later, with existence established, i think they'd use scat samples' DNA mix to match to known bigfoot but I don't think they'd be used for the initial identification.  Like many things the best they could prove is "we don't know what left this."  

 

If it was a hair sample I'd hope it was large enough to subject it to morphological exam first.  No point in spending money testing gopher fur.   I know of a person or two who is doing that.  Other options would be local university biology programs if they have faculty with relevant interests.   (Surprisingly, most specialize so greatly they are not really competent to comment on more general things.)   State F&W department.   Attempt to engage the USF&WS forensics lab.   Samples to Sykes and Disotell.   Then for my controls I'd look to a couple of universities that have graduate level vet medicine programs and the ability to do the necessary DNA testing.

 

One thing I think would be important would be to talk to friends who are, or were, faculty in the biology departments of a couple of local universities and get their assistance regarding proper procedures.   I know them well enough to know that whether they believe bigfoot is real or not, they are sticklers for doing things "correctly", dotting the i-s and crossing the t-s, so that the science stands up to scrutiny.    They might be able to point me to resources for testing that I haven't thought about, open doors that aren't otherwise open, etc.

 

MIB

 

So it sounds like you are looking for saliva or blood.

 

Not so much hair and stool? Is that correct?

[WSA]

MIB, of course there is a downside (upside?), you only will get one shot under your name, and you might just prove that you are a BF!

 

David, you know, right after I posted that I had the thought, "You just watch...."  Just goes to show, we are living in the future-past.

[Bluegrassfoot]

Couldn’t the eDNA results reveal what species likely spent the most time in the nests based on the relative volumes of DNA found and replicated?  I realize elapsed time since exposure would be a factor, but with eDNA I’d think there would be a detectable difference between the DNA of something that walked through the nest vs something that slept or gave birth there.

[WSA]

I don't think their is such a sampling technology Bluegrass, at least not one I've heard of.  DNA can exists in bits and fragments, and typically does. You don't know if you are getting a sequence from one human or multiple fragments from many.  To assemble the genome of every individual that left DNA to tell you how many individuals there were would be a pretty intensive undertaking and it still wouldn't tell you who was a more frequent visitor, only those who deposited DNA, which may or may not be the same thing. 

[MIB]

41 minutes ago, norseman said:

So it sounds like you are looking for saliva or blood.

 

Not so much hair and stool? Is that correct?

 

For me, I'd order them blood/tissue, hair, saliva, and stool.  

 

In each case, I'd need to observe the sample being ... "left behind", whatever the mechanism for that is.   

 

Placenta, hair or blood on previously clean barb wire, that sort of thing.   I do not intend to shoot one but if I have to defend myself and there is testable material available afterwards, I'm not wasting it.  

 

I can't really imagine any scenario where I'd wind up with testable fresh saliva or stool.

 

MIB 

 

[gigantor]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

One thing I think would be important would be to talk to friends who are, or were, faculty in the biology departments of a couple of local universities and get their assistance regarding proper procedures.   I know them well enough to know that whether they believe bigfoot is real or not, they are sticklers for doing things "correctly", dotting the i-s and crossing the t-s, so that the science stands up to scrutiny.

 

When you do, please write an article for the Squatchipedia about how to do it correctly.

 

Thanks

[southernyahoo]

You have to watch out when you have something tested. You have to be clear what you want done and that you get what you ask for, and what you pay for. A hair sample would have no identity going in, so one test would have to be done to find the species. Thats a short segment of mtDNA using a universal mammalian primer. If it didn't have human morphology but only resulted human DNA, then if they want to claim contamination then you should still get the hair donors DNA in the mix. You should then ask where it went!  Human contamination should never be the only thing present.  If it really was a human hair and it was contaminated by a human, the there would be two different human profiles in the mix. That would probably require a different test to find the two different human profiles.

 

What we get from Disotell  in regards to this is that bigfooters are notorious for contaminating their samples. Of coarse that's an easy dis on researchers, because we don't have the credentials to argue with him.

[ShadowBorn]

4 hours ago, southernyahoo said:

What we get from Disotell  in regards to this is that bigfooters are notorious for contaminating their samples. Of coarse that's an easy dis on researchers, because we don't have the credentials to argue with him.

This is the reason I had my own DNA tested through a few DNA sites  including family tree ,ancestry, and 23and me. I then downloaded my own DNA onto my own computer which I then uploaded onto gen match but besides just uploading on Gen match I have it on my computer. Which I can now mute the case of contamination if I was ever to shoot one with my bow by chance or find one dead. At least with a bow or cross bow you can mount a cam and have the event documented in case you do not kill the creature.  This sample can then go to any lab you decide to have the sample tested with. If the shot or the taking of the sample is well documented I am sure any lab will be willing to jump on the chance to discover a new species.  What lab would not want the chance to have their name posted on a new species that was well documented when the sample was taken. I am not sure but does not credentials mean a lot with in the science world and to have the chance of a new discovery mean everything. Even if it is a new species of Human or a hybrid of Ape/Gorilla.

 

With these nest there might have not been no sterilization that took place at the site.  There must have been excitement when the found these nest just when we find a print. How often do any of us ever find a nest out in the middle of the wilderness? I give you a hint : Never ! I get excited when I find a tree formation and that for me gives me that yahoo. But to find nests and to see how they were constructed  well that will just bring one to their knee's.  Then on top of all this is knowing that one knows that there is in these woods that could have constructed these nest besides a Human being. Sure our first thought should be is are we being hoaxed. But then studying the area and where the placement of these nest your thoughts become clear or at least this is how my mind would work. I am pretty sure that they had their eureka  moment once they gathered their thoughts.

 

Now I can only imagine how it must of felt to find out that the result came back negative. Again we still are not sure since it is all hear say and there no factual definite answer to what we are all asking for. Podcast is not a fact finder and is just hearsay. I know that I sure do not want to believe that they are playing this just so that they can collect money at these Bigfoot conventions. These creatures do not deserve to be toured around as a legend just so people can pocket money for greed. They deserve to be recognized as either a people or as the creature that their DNA shows them to be. If this team is doing it right then silence is the correct of doing it until it is fully documented and the species properly named and recognized by science as a whole. Again just my opinion.

[southernyahoo]

The problem here is that the e-DNA test is a very limited one designed to find all presently known species within the samples. It's not likely to be able to split hominins into various species.( I'd welcome any  geneticist to correct me if I'm wrong) Especially if there is hydridized species present or speciation in it's early stages. Scientists are not likely to declare a new species by a new method other than what is established using a known and accepted locus within the mitochondria.

[David NC]

15 hours ago, southernyahoo said:

It's not likely to be able to split hominins into various species

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/04/ancient-dna-sediment-neanderthal-denisovan/524433/

 

This is the link from Cliff's site that I posted earlier here. It was given to inform people of the eDNA tests that they were talking about doing on the nests.

This is a small exert.

Viviane Slon from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and her colleagues have now managed to extract and sequence the DNA of ancient animals from sediment that’s up to 240,000 years old. By doing so, they can infer the presence of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other extinct hominids without ever having to find their bones. “We were surprised by how well it works,” says Slon. “The success rates were amazing.”

 

Neanderthal and Denisovans are different than us but they share the human chromosome 2 fusion. 

All members of Hominidae except humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans have 24 pairs ofchromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes.Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. 

Edited December 9, 2018 by David NC

[bipedalist]

Great find, hard to figure out why that one wasn't on the national news, or maybe it was, long story short, lots of information can be gleaned from sediment. 

 

Big question is what is the cost and what technical expertise among labs nationally is required? 

 

Max Planck is pretty state of the art!

 

 

Edited December 9, 2018 by bipedalist

[southernyahoo]

21 hours ago, David NC said:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/04/ancient-dna-sediment-neanderthal-denisovan/524433/

 

This is the link from Cliff's site that I posted earlier here. It was given to inform people of the eDNA tests that they were talking about doing on the nests.

This is a small exert.

Viviane Slon from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and her colleagues have now managed to extract and sequence the DNA of ancient animals from sediment that’s up to 240,000 years old. By doing so, they can infer the presence of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other extinct hominids without ever having to find their bones. “We were surprised by how well it works,” says Slon. “The success rates were amazing.”

 

Neanderthal and Denisovans are different than us but they share the human chromosome 2 fusion. 

All members of Hominidae except humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans have 24 pairs ofchromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes.Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. 

 

That does sound like some new tech in DNA. Not sure if they are speaking specificly about the same testing with E-DNA. We need to understand what gene they are using and whether hominins differ in that gene.  

[Yeti-1]

Hey,

 

Has anything interesting come from  Meldrum or the olympic project DNa study? 

[hiflier]

Thank you!  It's good to know that one other person on this Forum is bringing this subject up. One thing I do know, you may be surprised if not shocked how few people in F&W and academia in general have even heard of the find which began over 4 1/2  years ago. Not one of the few so far that I have spoken to knew about it. For me it's just another facet of things that don't seem right about the whole picture in general. But hey, I'm just a random person with noted cynical and suspicious thoughts about the situation