i didn't get any DNA in my preparation?
113382
can you rephrase the question?
1035639
Well the size of the gene wont help us much to identify your PCR product. It all depends where your primers are located. You can get the rough sequence at the ncbi's website and align you primers with it so you know the size of your amplicon.
888249
Sequencing is so cheap these days, you'd rarely have to do this kind of thing in real life...\n\nThe key to notice is that your paternal version has a cut site 7 bases in, that your maternal doesn't.\n\nIt looks like your probe sits on the end bit, just after a second cut site, shared by both.  So your probe will stick equally well to the DNA from both alleles.  \n\nSo I don't see how that probe helps.
772022
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=16378\n\nYou need to read the book by Hamer- don't think you will find out enough without the book. Explicit biochem is rarely spelled out for the lay person in generic articles because people are too dumb to understand it.\n\n"\nHamer studied 2,000 DNA samples. He interviewed 2,000 people extensively (226 questions in each interview). The questions, among other things, looked at how spiritual a person is and what their level of faith in God is. \n\nHe found that the VMAT2 Gene was significantly more common among people who believed in a higher spiritual being. According to his research, whether or not your upbringing is religious has no bearing on how religious you turn out to be - but the presence of the VMAT2 Gene version does. "\n\nYou need to focus on this ASPECT in your paper, don't plagiarize. The details on mechanism of action of protein etc.. should be found in the book. Do not forget to cite the article link I pasted above.\n\nThe God Gene - How Faith is Hard Wired into our Genes is the book. Buy it fast if time is of the essence!
692784
I didn't, but I think that's cool that you did. Just calm down and wait for your results. You can't change anything now, and as long as you answered whichever you thought it was correctly, you'll know that you were right.  I hope this helps. Don't stress it's bad for you! BTW, I don't mean to be greedy, but I would like 10 points, please.
1020699
First of all make sure your template is good quality. Did you extract genomic DNA, do you have a library in plasmids...(?).\nTry re-purifying your template.\n\nMaybe your template is GC-rich or has some secondary structure.\nIs your template very long?If so make sure you let the polymerase is working at the elongating temperature for enough time (1min/kb)\n\nIf you are using plasmid template try not to use too much. Don't put more than 30-40ng DNA in a reaction. \n\nCheck your primers:\n-can they form a dimer?\n-can they anneal at more than one site on the template DNA with a only few mismatches?\n-is the difference in the Tm of the two primers more than 6 C (it shouldn't;ideally they should be the same and I try not to exceed a difference of 4)?\n-do your primers end in more than 3  c or g in a row?\n-what's their Tm and GC content?Tm should not be very low (I design my primers at 56-61) and GC 40-60%.\n\nThe most strigent conditions are using as annealing temperature 2 C below the lowest Tm of the two primers. Try lower temperatures.\n\nYou can try different enzymes Taq, Pfu, Pwo, etc, even mixtures. Not all enzymes have the same processivity.\n\nYou can try different Mg+2 concentrations.\n\nThere are a lot of control experiments you can do depending on your template and primers. Eg if you have a library in a  plasmid that has sites for universal primers you can use one such primer and the other respective primer you designed in order to check if there is something wrong with the quality of your primers. \n\nIf everything is perfectly designed and you've tried evreything but still get a very faint (but of correct size) band, gel purify it and use it as a template for a new PCR. In this case you'll have a very high chance of getting mutations so you'll need to use a high fidelity enzyme like Pwo or Pfu turbo and of course sequence a lot till you get a correct clone.
729453
K.C.'s answer works if you have a selective media that will work. Also (or in addition to that) you may want to plate out colonies and then PCR out a unique sequence or two.\n\nThis wouldn't be definitive but if you design your primers right it may work, but also may be very time consuming.\n\nAlso you may want to try restriction digests to remap your gene. This would work well, if you have a good map.\n\nGood luck, what a bummer
660574
the DNA that you have will do you no good and will not be able to be used in court . the police did not collect it and unless the guy has aids or HIV the spit is useless as evidence . the proper way to store DNA is in a glass or plastic tube . the only time DNA is used is in murder ,rape and other capital offenses\nand this is not a chat room you will be reported for abuse if you reply to every answer
909881
Though you will ignore the answer, I'll try anyway.  \n\nYour question, with explanation was a classic straw man, so I'll answer your question.\n\nI do not support ID as per se, but, all they are saying is the following:\n\nStep 1:  dna exists.\nStep 2:  later, new dna exists which could not have been eluciadated from existing dna, because there is unquestionably new and unique information in this new dna, which did not exist before.\nStep 3:  how did it happen?  \nStep 4:  it either happened by some still unknown natural or biological mechanism, or it was caused, created.\nStep 5: the natural or biological mechanism seems unlikely as the cause for strictly reasonable and logical reasons.  However, if it could be discovered, it would be one of the most important discoveries ever, and would be communicated as such.  This is still one of the mysteries in biology.  \nStep 6:  new information is not created by natural and random processes.  This just does not occur in nature.  Based on experience and logic.  \nStep 7:  based on the above, it seems that design is involved.\n\nThis is not hard logic.  The point is that you have closed your mind to the issues the ID people are trying to consider, and ID people are fully engaged in science.  What happens if you are wrong?\n\nBasically, ID does not say design is perfect, however, it could very well be optimal, and that takes intelligence, and then it is not a flaw.  ID people have answered your question many times.  Many you need to do some reading.  I cannot say the retina is shoddely wired.  Your remark was a rhetorical and opinionated remark.\n\nNot trying to give you a hard time.  Just the facts.\n\nEdit:  Anything that is proven by science, I agree with.  Duplication is well known.  I hope I was clear.  The issue is:  Here is dna without a certain new function, like a lung, or kidney, or brain, or eye, or skin, of bone, or hair, of tear duct, or immune response, etc.  Later, a 100 lines, or millions of lines of new dna exist with this code.  Duplication is not the mechanism, for the function did not exist, and requires some pretty profound new engineering to create.  The unanswered question is:  how did it happen?  Randomness cannot be part of the solution, since the improbabilities are far too great.  \n\nCan this question be answered, or is it still open?  The answer I usually get is, well just because we do not know, does not mean we should accept the possibility of a creator.  I say, you should consider both, until we have an answer.  You may lean one way or the other, but both are still possibilities.  \n\nThe most knowledgeable scientists agree for example, in cosmology, the closer we get to the beginning of the universe, the more the questions become philosophical and theological.  You are discounting a vital side of the story.
273698
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=shattered+helix+dna+of+humans&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&x=wrt  read through these to see if any of them are what you need
534422
No possible way of knowing that since nobody (I am quite sure) has gone back and tried to determine whether the particular DNA evidence used in all those cases was "accurate" or "inaccurate."  In general, however, it is my belief that when performed properly and correctly used, DNA evidence is virtually infallible.
387176
being Jewish isnt about your DNA, its about your soul. Well the only way to find out is by tracing your mothers family, becasue your Jewishness is dependent on hers.
138348
your good luck or perhaps doule check your Dna
214110
u need not take those tests for visa approval.\nit will never come up.\ngo on and anyway curing it wil be good.
597037
I dont know if this is it, but go here at: http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/pro_DNA/ster_horm_rec/
1087359
he didn't... he made two perfect people with the DNA to addapt to your inviroment.... we made the diffrent races by going to difrent places and addapting.....
871165
It is really suspicious that it would take so long for these DNA tests. I am under the impression that they were accepting many donations in excess of what would have been needed.Also anyone who didn't want these tests to be conclusive would also be able to interfere with the tests results by swapping genetic material.That is if you apply the conspiracists theories.This site you have seems to be much more detailed but doesn't have the reconstructed facial features. From the look of this skull this child or person I would guess would have had great difficulty in eating.I would not be so convinced of any alien origin with so many genetic deformities out there.We still have much to learn about how our environment has played a role in this.Here is an older video I had found in the past. There are so many ways to fake or manipulate evidence of this kind you would really need some dramatic proof like a ship landing in the middle of a city or on national TV. One little partial skull doesn't make much difference here.\n\nhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6052145356089423332\nHere is another site with some alleged interviews.\n\nhttp://www.rahabisreturning.com/disclosure.htm