hiflier Posted February 4, 2020 Author Posted February 4, 2020 So. How many of you folks are thinking like I am here: That I'm not the first person to have thought of this NOTCH2 idea? The two papers came out a year and a half ago. I found them on line only in the last couple of weeks. If there are any Sasquatch proponents in the ranks of academic biology/zoology, or Fish & Wildlife, or Forestry Service, then it may be fair to say someone (or a bunch of someone's) could be already on this. Perhaps all it would take would be to fluoresce the proper gene's location on a given chromosome, or it expressed protein like what my PhD guy did:
hiflier Posted February 8, 2020 Author Posted February 8, 2020 What if I were to take a sample from the environment that has been protocoled for say, a frog? The results came back, and I am told the sample was contaminated with Human DNA. And just for fun, I ask the technician to do a BLAST test on the Human DNA to see if it matches anything in the GenBank. The tech says, okay, and runs the sample. The GenBank says, yes, there are Human markers in the sample. Then I ask the tech whether the results from the GenBank could be studied in greater depth. The tech says, possibly, but it might be easier to select exactly what it is that I am looking for. I tell the tech that I'm looking for a pair of NOTCH2 genes where one is a defective copy. He punches that into the computer and the result is, yes, there is a NOTCH2 gene present along with a defective copy. And very innocently I ask how could that happen? The tech answers, the only way it could happen is if there's an ape in the environment. As another approach, I ask the tech to run a Blast test on the same sample, but this time look for any one of four gene variations: Either a NOTCH2NL, a NOTCH2NLA, a NOTCH2NLB, or a NOTCH2NLC. The tech runs another BLAST against the GenBank and comes up empty. In the first example, I specifically asked for APE genes. In the second example, I specifically asked for HUMAN genes. In either case the result pointed to a primate other than Human. The reason I did this is to show that one can talk to a scientist using Human rather than ape references and arrive at the same end, which is this question: What if a Human contaminated sample DIDN'T show a Human NOTCH2NL gene variation of any kind, even though other Human markers were present? What would that signify? This goes to the heart of Sasquatch samples in the past that seem to always come back Human. And I say in the past because I am not aware of any suspected Sasquatch DNA samples as having been specifically tested for a NOTCH2 gene of ANY kind. Now, knowledge of the Chimp/Gorilla NOTCH2, and its Human counterparts, NOTCH2NL with four variations, has been around for a LONG, LONG time. The only reason the two most recent papers on them came out was the new correlation between the Human versions of the genes as they relate to a larger brain size with higher function. And I wouldn't have even known that had I not been wanting an answer to the question about which genes are specific to Humans- to see if e-DNA could pick them out. I think it can and need to somehow get this hurdle behind me so that I can take the next logical step. This is only my feeble attempt to document how, and why, I'm going in the direction I'm going.
Wolfjewel Posted February 8, 2020 Posted February 8, 2020 Hiflier, that’s impressive. Anyone else understand and concur? Anyone want to TRY it? Search for financing? 1
hiflier Posted February 8, 2020 Author Posted February 8, 2020 Thank you, Wolfjewel. If done right, no financing would be necessary. The University of California will train citizen scientists in how to take samples, give them e-DNA kits and then run the samples for nothing. I think Maine will do it as part of their coastal marine grant (20 million) and Cornell in NY will do it for their ornithology department. The underlying issue is if the samples results are shown to the citizen scientists and there is evidence of Human contamination can the CS request a more thorough examination of the of the Human DNA found in the sample. That request might be worth pursuing if the CS knows for certain that they ran the field samples in such a way that no contamination should be present. No one can be assured that other Humans hadn't been in the area so remoteness may be a factor. In general, though, having a preliminary dialogue with these two questions in it that are on the other thread might be helpful to get people running the program thinking: 1) Can a fluorescence protocol be set up to detect either the genes or proteins of the Human Notch2NL A, B, or C gene variations? 2)Could it be used along with a protocol for detecting other mammals in the environment as a way to determine if suspected Human contamination in a sample is really from a Human?
hiflier Posted February 8, 2020 Author Posted February 8, 2020 (edited) There's quite a bit of good information here: https://www.fs.usda.gov/working-with-us/citizen-science Another good site: https://www.citizenscience.org/ This: https://earthchallenge2020.earthday.org/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7qPk7rLC5wIVysDACh1q7AKTEAMYASAAEgItIfD_BwE And this: https://scistarter.org Edited February 8, 2020 by hiflier
NorthWind Posted February 10, 2020 Posted February 10, 2020 Nothing in Oregon, from what I can see. I didn't have a lot of time to look, though.
hiflier Posted February 10, 2020 Author Posted February 10, 2020 (edited) Water sampling https://citizen.science.oregonstate.edu/node/74 You may be able to get some info to see if it fits in with your research goals and maybe take it from there? The important thing is contact. It may lead to avenues closer to biologists in the field of non-invasive mammal tracking? Edited February 10, 2020 by hiflier
hiflier Posted February 11, 2020 Author Posted February 11, 2020 I've been racking my little pea brain for an anology to help understand this DNA stuff. I hit upon the idea of residential house building. It just might be the ticket. The blueprint (DNA) for a new house has arrived on the construction site. The general contractor (RNA) unrolls the blueprint and scans down the index of pages (loci) until he finds the page number for the bathroom. He goes to that page (locus) and notices that there are four different bathroom (gene) variations (alleles) to choose from. He sees that one bathroom (allele/gene variation) has a certain set of fixtures and floor covering (base pairs). He looks an another bathroom layout (allele/gene variation) and it has a DIFFERENT set of fixtures and floor covering (base pairs) and the same goes for the other two remaing bathroom variations (alleles/gene variations) He knows he can only choose one, so the general contractor (RNA) selects the bathroom (allele/gene variation) that will best fit the situation. Then begins to construct the bathroom. The chosen variation has specific fixtures and floor covering (base pairs) that will insure the finished product is correct ( allele/gene variation expression). When complete the result is a bathroom that has all of the desired different physical elements (phenotypes) that will tell other people that it is indeed a bathroom. Taken a step further: The four bathroom designs were specific to that style of house. For the record, the contractor opens the blueprint (DNA, takes a yellow magic marker (fluorescence), and colors in the bathroom variation (allele) that got chosen. He then submits the bluepring to the bluepring library (GenBank). Once done, he will then be able run a search (BLAST test) to quickly find all of the identical.houses (DNA) by selecting that specific bathroom configuration (barcoding). If all the different houses (phenotypes) that had ever been built all got their blueprints (DNA) entered into the library and someone wanted to know all of the different house-types (taxa) in a large neighborhood then a wider search (metabarcoding) could be done. Then, all available blueprints would pop up showing all of the different house designs (DNA's) and what they physically looked like (phenotypes).
Recommended Posts