What is the limitation of In situ hybridization?
478310
As far as using for detection, its very vulnerable to showing false positives from non-specific binding.  In addition, because of the relatively low level of mRNA, it can only be used for fairly abundant messages.  It is somewhat difficult to separate non-specific from specific binding, but of course it can be done.  In addition, it only shows the presence of message-it does not tell about the level of protein translation.
42489
Yes it can be done one place that does it is called questgen forensics. Also Animal DNA Services \nVeterinary Diagnostics Center does dna testing for genetic issues your pet could have and dna banking stuff like that.
432215
My guess would be dna sequencing.
1052261
You are quite correct. This isn't a ground breaking observation or anything, although you did well to think of it on your own.\n\nThis is one of the major problems with hybrid animals and plants because the F1 generation is usually relatively uniform while the F2 generation can produce throwbacks to either or both grandparents. \n\nBecause the chromosomes are randomly assorted it is quite possible to produce an individual that contains little or even no genetic material from one or even two grandparents.
543681
We use Sequenom mass spec genotyping here.\n\nThe mass spec costs a lot, and it's not as cost-effective at really high throughput levels (say, running thousands of assays at a time) as some other systems.  But if you want to change your panel of assays frequently, or you want the ability to easily check lots of samples against a small set of assyas, it's very doable on a Sequenom system.  It would be pretty much impossible, or ludicrously expensive to run, say, 10 assays against 500 samples on an Illumina or an Affy genotyping set-up.
902050
I hate to tell you this but the chances are stacked up against you. There is so much that goes into biology and into the processes that goes along with it that it would be impossible to cram it all into 4 nights. Biology is full of little details that are important to the overall process that can easily be missed if you don't look carefully enough.
946141
Please call the lab where you'll have the test done and ask this important question.  Good luck.
944540
Probing is based on hybridization techniques.  \n\nIf you will allow, I will describe some of the basics in this commonly used assay.\n\nLet's say, for example that you wanted to know if a genome from a particular person contained a mutation.  And that you already knew what the mutation sequence was.  \n\nYou would purchase an probe (a short stretch of DNA that would be at least 20 bases long, that's been modified with a indicator molecule) in the anti-sense sequence of what your probing.  \n\nIn theory, when the anti-sense sequence (or more commonly called the probe), finds its sense sequence, it will bind to it match (this is the hybridization step).\n\nThe indicator molecule that is co-valently attached to the probe would be something like a radio-isotope, or a fluorescent molecule.  It is used to visually indicate that the probe has, indeed, found it's complimentary sequence.  \n\nWhere the hybridization takes place has changed through out the years.  \n\nClassically the assay was performed in an agarose gel, where the DNA would travel according to its size.  Then the probe would be washed over the agarose gel, and allowed to hybridize to the genomic DNA.  \n\nI never did it this way (so I may be missing a step).  I did mine on glass slides.  \n\nThere a lot variations on this step.  Some where the probe is immobilized and fixed in location, and some where the "test" DNA is immobilized and fixed in location.\n\nIt is improtant to know which one is immobilized. Because then you know which way to orient things. \n\nAlso it is really important to control the salt concentration during the hybridization step. A high salt concentration (along with other factors like low temperature, pH) encourages DNA (probe and "test" DNA) to bind together.  I'll say it again:  High salts encourage specific hybridization to occur.\n\nDuring this hybridization step, you'll also be adding an enzyme which will co-valently (and permanently) bind the probe to the DNA.\n\nAfter a good amount time, allowing for hybridization and co-valent attachment to occur, you'll do some wash steps.  The wash steps remove any unbound probe (the probe is always added in huge amounts compared to your "test" DNA) from the assay.  \n\nThis step is also critical, because it will allow you to "read" the final results with greater acuity.  In other words, you'll have less false positive results.\n\nThe wash steps are done with lower salt concentrations.  Just the opposite of the hybridization step, with the goal of removing any probes that have inadvertently attached to the "test" DNA imperfectly without co-valent attachment.\n\nNow its time to read the results. The "read out" method is based on the molecule you attached to your probe. So if you had a fluorescent probe, you will use a fluorescent reader.  If you chose an isotope, you'll use a radio-graphic technique.\n\nEarlier I mentioned this example would be a method to detect a mutation in the genome of a patient (but you vary this method to detect a lot of different things).  So if you saw something "glowing" in your read out, then you could assume that the patient had the mutation.  If you saw no "glow" then you could assume the patient did not possess the mutation.\n\nIn reality, when one visualizes a positive result, they usually follow it up with a more sensitive test.  \n\nProbing nucleic acids is a quick way to screen for one thing on many samples. \n\nBut it can be a good way to probe one sample for many different things.  You would be limited by how many unique indicator molecules you can have (and afford) to have on your many probes that would give you unique signal.\n\nI had fun thinking about your question.  Please pass on the good Karma!
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.
292388
In a lab that does research of this type.  I don't think the process is available in clinics as of yet.\n\nI would have said in Korea, but apparently their data is all fake.
630211
Histology is about tissues, I think. Why don't you do a shared DNA percentage study. For instance, our percent shared DNA is exrtremely high with great apes ,of course. So, how would it match other mammals? Or, maybe even non-mammals like fish or something. If you don't like that idea, you could always test for pollutants and toxins in the tissues of various animals.
686748
I'm going to have to go with \n\nc) trysomy\n\nbecause there is NO way that it can reveal phenotype (so A and D are out).  And I know for a fact it can reveal trysomy\n\n"Karyotype analysis can detect large chromosomal abnormalities such as loss or gain of an entire chromosome or portions of a chromsome and translocations (when a portion of a chromosome breaks off and rejoins with another chromosome, a common occurrence in leukemias)."
1051036
We haven't cloned any downright extinct animals yet, because most of them either have no extractable DNA remianing or have no living relatives close enough to use an an incubator. As for people, the ethical controversy is too big to condone any experiments. We've coloned most domestic animals, though.
936422
.  It's the sort of achievement that is so interesting and scientifically valuable that, if it were possible through and techniques yet developed, it would have been done; and it hasn't.\n.  If there were a tissue specimen from an extinct species which were well enough preserved that there were intact cell nuclei and intact chromosomes, it should be possible to clone a near match to the extinct animal, using an egg ell from a closely related species.  This 'clone' would not have the same mitochondrial DNA as the extinct animal, s it is not known if it would have the same metabolic performance, but it should be close enough.\n.  Unfortunately, it takes quite a lot of care to preserve cell nuclei and chromosomes.  The only extinct animals for whom such care has been taken are a few who have gone extinct while observed by scientists.  These are species which were watched closely as their population dwindled to a few individuals and, when the last few passed, tissue samples were taken in the hope that they might be cloned.  The amount of such tissue material preserved is very limited, and the time does not seem right to risk that limited tissue in an effort at cloning in which there is not yet great confidence.
1036190
If your refering to using a larger drive than needed for the application. Then I would say only limited by your cost and if the drive can be adjusted to the motor/load you are trying to use.
1053947
no, because it is a defect on human chromosome 21, where 3 copies are made instead of 2. this has never been seen to occur in the genomes of other organisms.
295600
It's something that's done in the lab with traditional equipment like beakers, Erlenmeyer flasks, etc.  This generally distinguishes if from industrial scale, which is typically much larger.  It may also distinguish from micro-scale or "in situ" (where it happens) studies.