eDNA tests

[Madison5716]

How much do the tests cost to purchase ... and then what? I'd like to talk to a biologist friend of mine, but I don't know where to start.

[NatFoot]

@hiflier

 

 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

5 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

@hiflier

 

 

Yup.

 

Prepare for your education on eDNA, Madison...

[hiflier]

I would talk to your biologist friend then, Madison, especially for cost specifics. Your friend may also know of any citizen science programs being run by FS , F&W, or the universities. Your biologist may either already know, or want to know, why YOU want to know. Please post what you find out and whether or not you want some details about what's already in place as far as what someone might use to collect samples. There are products available for detecting the Human genome and other products that primate researchers use to detect other Great Apes. That alone may help in any dialogue you may be able to have.

 

Read up on the "why we can't find and study Sasquatch" thread as there's a lot there in the last few pages that might help clarify things better for you. So between contacting your biologist friend and actually getting into a conversation you could have some time to get somewhat up to speed on the subject if you're not already. It would be beneficial for NorthWind to perhaps do the same? Good luck on any future meetings or talks you may be lucky enough to get into. I also would be more than happy to answer any questions that mey crop up   

Edited February 25, 2020 by hiflier

[JustCurious]

Another option might be to email Les Stroud and ask the question.  I know I've seen $1000 somewhere, but I don't know what that included.

 

It's funny you should bring this up because just the other day I saw something about eDNA samples done on bears in the Himilayas to determine species from tracks in snow.  Apparently, they can get skin cells from the snow to extract the DNA.  I thought of you for some reason when I saw that...

[hiflier]

The only actual price tag I remember seeing or hearing was the cost to run one sample taken from the nests in the Olympic Peninsula. $1000 a pop. My PhD person told me his tests run $5. If that's the case then he could run 200 tests for the same price as one from OP the nest site. I will see if I can get some specifics on why the nest samples were so expensive.

[Madison5716]

Thank you, hiflier.

 

That's quite a range of prices. Hope it's on the lower end!

[hiflier]

So do I, M. Buts it's also why I mentioned tapping into citizen science, because it would all be free and you would more that likely be informed on and sample results. Win-win.

[SWWASAS]

11 hours ago, hiflier said:

The only actual price tag I remember seeing or hearing was the cost to run one sample taken from the nests in the Olympic Peninsula. $1000 a pop. My PhD person told me his tests run $5. If that's the case then he could run 200 tests for the same price as one from OP the nest site. I will see if I can get some specifics on why the nest samples were so expensive.

Somehow I think tests run looking for bigfoot are going to be more expensive because the lab that does it, knows you cannot realistically shop around for a better price because some labs are likely to refuse to do testing for bigfoot because of the potential controversy and possible reflection on their credibility.     We can thank Ketchum for that.  

 

I just had a thought.     Most of the ancestry sites doing DNA testing are charging about $250.     What if someone who gets a good sample likely to have BF DNA simply sends it to one of these sites like National Geographic or Ancestry.com       It might reflect contamination or might reflect human / BF common markers.   They would not simply claim human contamination because it is supposed to be human DNA in the first place.   It might be so interesting to the techs that they spend extra time and effort with the testing trying to figure it out.       What if it came back 50% Neanderthal instead of something like my 3%.    Would be a really back door way to get the interest of science.    

[NorthWind]

3 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

 

I just had a thought.     Most of the ancestry sites doing DNA testing are charging about $250.     What if someone who gets a good sample likely to have BF DNA simply sends it to one of these sites like National Geographic or Ancestry.com       It might reflect contamination or might reflect human / BF common markers.   They would not simply claim human contamination because it is supposed to be human DNA in the first place.   It might be so interesting to the techs that they spend extra time and effort with the testing trying to figure it out.       What if it came back 50% Neanderthal instead of something like my 3%.    Would be a really back door way to get the interest of science.    

 

It's certainly a thought.  But I can't help but picture in my mind the techs at a place like that as being about 22 years old, with pimples, life sized cardboard cutouts of characters from Star Trek in their "lab", whose last job was a movie usher. Maybe I'm wrong.

[hiflier]

4 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

What if it came back 50% Neanderthal instead of something like my 3%.    Would be a really back door way to get the interest of science.

 

What do you think a Human contaminated sample with none of the four NOTCH2NL variations would do? It's why I say that in order to keep everyone off guard as far as BF goes, just test for Human specific NOTCH2NL gene variations. If they aren't present then guess what?

[SWWASAS]

15 minutes ago, NorthWind said:

 

It's certainly a thought.  But I can't help but picture in my mind the techs at a place like that as being about 22 years old, with pimples, life sized cardboard cutouts of characters from Star Trek in their "lab", whose last job was a movie usher. Maybe I'm wrong.

You are probably not far off.     Some tech company around here is trying to recruit workers.     Job requirements include the ability to wear a clean room suit for extended periods of time.     Some production DNA ancestry lab is likely mostly automated with the techs just monitoring the equipment operation and replenishing fluids etc.  

 

Hiflier my DNA test listed specific markers that are specifically related to place and time.    I do not recall anything like NOTCH2NL being mentioned.  L3, N, R, RO, HV, H, H1, P305,  M42, M168, P143, M89, M578, P128, M526,, M207, P231,M343, M269, P310, P312,  and L21  All were listed as my ancestral markers.    The oldest one being the P305 mutation occurring in Africa more than 100,000 years ago.     I do not know if any of those are common with the chimpanzee but it is unlikely since man and chimpanzee separated millions of years ago.   

[hiflier]

NOTCH2NL is important because your marker list will get you back to certain Human groups whereas the four NOTCH2NL variations will include ALL Humans and all Human species ancestral branches all the way back to Chimpanzees.

 

There are many Human-specific genes and many Chimpanzee-specific genes. Pick one. A big part of the evolutionary story is brain size. By looking for the NOTCH2NL it covers both brain size as well as Great Ape/Human species specificity. In other words a change in one of your markers may only mean you are from a different Human haplogroup. A difference in the NOTCH2NL will say Human or Great Ape.

[SWWASAS]

Use of Ancestry.com and other low cost DNA labs would not include the NOTCH2NL data in the report because all humans have it.     It is likely there but not reported.   I listed all the markers that they provided me from both matriarchal and paternal sides.    I would think there are DNA labs that could match or beat what the ancestry labs charge and still get a full DNA report.     

[hiflier]

Probably so, SWWASAS. And yes, all Humans have the four NOTCH2NL variations. Chimps and Gorillas have the NOTCH2NL pseudo gene versions that don't do anything. So, a result for a novel primate can go one of two ways: 1) sample looks like Human contamination, but doesn't have any of the four Human NOTCH2NL variations that all Humans have, or 2) simply go out and test directly for Chimpanzee NOTCH2NL pseudogenes in North American habitats.

 

Which would be easier and, at the same time, not raise much in the way of red flags? Personally, I don't think retesting a supposed Human-contaminated sample would elicit as much attention. Straight out testing for Chimpanzees? That would be another story.