I live in northern california, I have some biological material I would like to have tested. Where should I start, how much will each sample cost, and knowing that there is no confirmed sasquatch sample to compare to my samples what should I expect? Thanks in advance for any relevant info you may provide.
"As we all stand in a circle, and suppose. The Sasquatch sits in the middle, and knows."
Full Version: DNA Testing suggestions
Hey Sac-squatch,
First off, we need some one here on the BFF to tell us how to properly preserve the material. At the very least I'd guess you could put it in a clean freezer zip lock and throw it into the freezer. You need to keep the bacteria and handling contamination down.
Second, what is the material and why do you think it's interesting?
If it's something that has alot of promise, Henner Fahrenbach, retired from the Oregon Primate Center, or someone who he recommends, is a good bet to send it to for DNA testing.
First off, we need some one here on the BFF to tell us how to properly preserve the material. At the very least I'd guess you could put it in a clean freezer zip lock and throw it into the freezer. You need to keep the bacteria and handling contamination down.
Second, what is the material and why do you think it's interesting?
If it's something that has alot of promise, Henner Fahrenbach, retired from the Oregon Primate Center, or someone who he recommends, is a good bet to send it to for DNA testing.
Check w/ Autumn Williams
Is BlueGenes in the house?
QUOTE(Sac-squatch @ Sep 18 2007, 03:00 AM) 
I live in northern california, I have some biological material I would like to have tested. Where should I start, how much will each sample cost, and knowing that there is no confirmed sasquatch sample to compare to my samples what should I expect? Thanks in advance for any relevant info you may provide.
If you can give some more details (feel free to pm me), and the sample is worthy, I might be able to offer some help. And if it's hair, BlueGenes has made an open offer.
QUOTE(tsiatkoVS @ Sep 18 2007, 06:34 AM)
First off, we need some one here on the BFF to tell us how to properly preserve the material.
I'm pretty sure this has been done many times for virtually every type of sample though the relevant threads might not be easy to find. And at least one of the associated organizations (AIBR?) has good "how to" info on their website.
Apeman
Apeman, you caught me being lazy.
After a slightly less lazy use of the search feature, I still haven't found anything about biological preservation, but I'll continue looking. Gotta be something on the BFF.
After a slightly less lazy use of the search feature, I still haven't found anything about biological preservation, but I'll continue looking. Gotta be something on the BFF.
Please forgive my absence from the forum. I have been quite busy the past few days with work. Apeman is correct. I did make an open offer to run a DNA analysis on a hair sample. That offer still stands. But please remember my caveat: I'd first like to know the circumstances of the collection. Where is it from? How did you find it? How has it been stored? How old is it? Through how many people has the sample been exchanged? Time and resouces are limited. I don't think we should test any sample without some background information. If that info pans out, then by all means, lets test it.
QUOTE(Apeman @ Sep 18 2007, 11:32 AM)
I'm pretty sure this has been done many times for virtually every type of sample though the relevant threads might not be easy to find. And at least one of the associated organizations (AIBR?) has good "how to" info on their website.
Apeman
Apeman
AIBR is correct: http://www.bigfootresearch.com/index.php?name...icle&sid=37 Please keep us posted, Sac-squatch!!!
QUOTE
Kathy Moskowitz Strain
Note: Always keep careful track of the chain of custody of your sample (who have handled it and when).
Blood and Tissue: Since blood and tissue are very sensitive to contamination, always use sterile techniques which collecting samples. If you do not have a glove, use a ziploc to cover your hand. Avoid alcohol as preservative (both DNA and RNA are degraded by alcohols).
If the blood is wet, use a sterile cotton swab or gauze to "mop up" the blood. Hold the sample until it air dries and place into a paper bag. If the blood is dry, use sterile water to lightly wet and collect as above. Place sample into a freezer as soon as possible. Collect tissue the same way.
When mailing sample for DNA testing, if possible, send the sample frozen in a small insulated cardboard box. Dry and cold is always best for most plant and animal tissues.
Hair: Hair is best collected using tweezers and placing the sample into a paper envelope. If tissue or blood is noted at the end of the hair, the sample should be frozen immediately. This is essential and helps keep the bacterial count to a minimum.
Food Remains: There have been several occasions when people found half eaten apples or potatoes with conspicuous tooth marks. For all organic evidence, immediately place into a paper bag and freeze. When being shipped for scientific analysis, place it on dry ice.
Finger, palm or lip prints: Wearing gloves and using wide, clear tape (big enough to cover the print), carefully start at one edge of the print and lay the tape across the entire print, going slow enough to ensure no bubbles or wrinkles. Once the tape is applied, take your finger and rub it across the tape to ensure it is touching every part of the print. Carefully peel the tape up and immediately apply it to a piece of paper or cardstock. Prints on CDs can be placed in an envelope and mailed directly.
On the envelope/container please include the following information:
Collection Person: name, phone, email
Date:
Location: landmark, county, state
Habitat characteristics: terrain, vegetation, microclimate
Cir(edited)stances & Observations:
Custody Chain: persons involved, witnesses, handling techniques, and potential contamination
Posted by Kathy.Strain on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 (06:17:41) (103 reads)
Note: Always keep careful track of the chain of custody of your sample (who have handled it and when).
Blood and Tissue: Since blood and tissue are very sensitive to contamination, always use sterile techniques which collecting samples. If you do not have a glove, use a ziploc to cover your hand. Avoid alcohol as preservative (both DNA and RNA are degraded by alcohols).
If the blood is wet, use a sterile cotton swab or gauze to "mop up" the blood. Hold the sample until it air dries and place into a paper bag. If the blood is dry, use sterile water to lightly wet and collect as above. Place sample into a freezer as soon as possible. Collect tissue the same way.
When mailing sample for DNA testing, if possible, send the sample frozen in a small insulated cardboard box. Dry and cold is always best for most plant and animal tissues.
Hair: Hair is best collected using tweezers and placing the sample into a paper envelope. If tissue or blood is noted at the end of the hair, the sample should be frozen immediately. This is essential and helps keep the bacterial count to a minimum.
Food Remains: There have been several occasions when people found half eaten apples or potatoes with conspicuous tooth marks. For all organic evidence, immediately place into a paper bag and freeze. When being shipped for scientific analysis, place it on dry ice.
Finger, palm or lip prints: Wearing gloves and using wide, clear tape (big enough to cover the print), carefully start at one edge of the print and lay the tape across the entire print, going slow enough to ensure no bubbles or wrinkles. Once the tape is applied, take your finger and rub it across the tape to ensure it is touching every part of the print. Carefully peel the tape up and immediately apply it to a piece of paper or cardstock. Prints on CDs can be placed in an envelope and mailed directly.
On the envelope/container please include the following information:
Collection Person: name, phone, email
Date:
Location: landmark, county, state
Habitat characteristics: terrain, vegetation, microclimate
Cir(edited)stances & Observations:
Custody Chain: persons involved, witnesses, handling techniques, and potential contamination
Posted by Kathy.Strain on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 (06:17:41) (103 reads)
You will have to excuse me on a couple accounts in advance, Firstly having been a very private researcher and enthusiast for a very long time, I just don't know who to trust especially in the whole chain of custody issue. The samples I have collected are two small patches of hair, with what appears to be hide attached it does have blood on some of the hair and hide patches as they seem to have been scraped off of an animal sliding down a tree. The samples were found around Allegheny in the North Yuba River drainage in California. More specifically between Forest and Allegheny. It is certainly not from a black bear. Ever heard of a black bear "treeing" a Sasquatch? Once again, If I have it tested, and it comes back as not being a match to any known indigenous creature, am I any better off than I was before? BTW, I am not looking to get flamed, like I said I just think I might actually have something of worthy inspection to share with the rest of the community. Thanks again.
As we all stand in a circle, and suppose. The sasquatch sits in the middle, and knows.
As we all stand in a circle, and suppose. The sasquatch sits in the middle, and knows.
Sac-squatch,
While I am fairly new to this board as well I have quickly learned a few general things about this forums members. Overall, they are very open minded. Unless one is making very grandiose claims or speculations I wouldn't worry all that much about "flaming". Many members are somewhat skeptical of new evidence. They will ask questions. I won't nor should anyone take this as personal criticism. In a field such a BF research I think this is a healthy attitude.
You'll find a wide array of backgrounds and expertise on this board. Again, this a good thing. It provides an abundance of ideas and discussion. Concerning your hair and tissue samples: If you search the board for key words such as "DNA" you'll find several discussions on genetic research. In those discussions you'll find well founded, currently accepted and valid reasons why one does not need a known BF DNA sequence to compare an unknown sample to. I won't repeat the reasons here as I do not want to rehash an old discussion.
If you have questions or concerns DNA, primates and the latest research some board members come to mind. Apeman is certainly on top of that short list. He has been a memeber for a long time and knows his field well. I know DNA and regularly do analysis myself, but as a "newbie" I'm not sure if I've gained the same respect (which is fine with me).
I would encourage you to ask questions. And people will ask questions about your sample, as they should. Ultimately the sample is yours and yours to do with as you please. Good luck and I hope to hear more from you.
BlueGenes
While I am fairly new to this board as well I have quickly learned a few general things about this forums members. Overall, they are very open minded. Unless one is making very grandiose claims or speculations I wouldn't worry all that much about "flaming". Many members are somewhat skeptical of new evidence. They will ask questions. I won't nor should anyone take this as personal criticism. In a field such a BF research I think this is a healthy attitude.
You'll find a wide array of backgrounds and expertise on this board. Again, this a good thing. It provides an abundance of ideas and discussion. Concerning your hair and tissue samples: If you search the board for key words such as "DNA" you'll find several discussions on genetic research. In those discussions you'll find well founded, currently accepted and valid reasons why one does not need a known BF DNA sequence to compare an unknown sample to. I won't repeat the reasons here as I do not want to rehash an old discussion.
If you have questions or concerns DNA, primates and the latest research some board members come to mind. Apeman is certainly on top of that short list. He has been a memeber for a long time and knows his field well. I know DNA and regularly do analysis myself, but as a "newbie" I'm not sure if I've gained the same respect (which is fine with me).
I would encourage you to ask questions. And people will ask questions about your sample, as they should. Ultimately the sample is yours and yours to do with as you please. Good luck and I hope to hear more from you.
BlueGenes
QUOTE(Sac-squatch @ Sep 18 2007, 03:35 PM)
The samples I have collected are two small patches of hair, with what appears to be hide attached it does have blood on some of the hair and hide patches as they seem to have been scraped off of an animal sliding down a tree. The samples were found around Allegheny in the North Yuba River drainage in California.
You said you don't think black bear but didn't explain why. And what about raccoon, opossum, bobcat, mountain lion, housecat, squirrel, or any of the other most likely suspects? What leads you to think it could be a sasquatch? Were there any associated sightings? Tracks?
Not trying to be overly harsh but we all need keep our skepticles on in a situation like this and first rule out the obvious explanations before wasting time, money, effort and sometimes valuable favors. If there is enough material I'd suggest starting by having someone try to ID a plucked hair or two. I think Henner is always willing to look but obviously I can't speak for him. Plenty of folks here could connect you with him.
Can you describe the sample a little more? Color? Texture? Size? Length of hairs? Any banding on the hairs? Do you have any means of posting an image of them here? And also why you even suspect it could be a sasquatch?
QUOTE
If I have it tested, and it comes back as not being a match to any known indigenous creature, am I any better off than I was before?
If you have it DNA tested the answer won't ever be a simple "no match." Assuming it's not something like "no useable DNA," or "apparent human contamination," it will either be one of our known local animals or something that should be easily placed in the tree of life, for example "great ape, between human and chimpanzee." And in that case, we'll ALL be better off!
Respectfully,
Apeman
I would suggest a microscopic identification first and Dr. W. H. Fahrenbach would be my first call.
His e mail is HennerF@aol.com.
I have his address if you need it, but he can give it to you as well.
His e mail is HennerF@aol.com.
I have his address if you need it, but he can give it to you as well.
QUOTE(superd @ Sep 19 2007, 01:06 AM)
I would suggest a microscopic identification first and Dr. W. H. Fahrenbach would be my first call.
His e mail is HennerF@aol.com.
I have his address if you need it, but he can give it to you as well.
His e mail is HennerF@aol.com.
I have his address if you need it, but he can give it to you as well.
***
I agree with the idea of a visual microscopic examination first. It's quick (relitivly) and less expencive. It also has the advantage of being non-distructive, so the sample can be further examined later. My personal thought is - unless you personally see the bigfoot hung up on some barbwire, it is best to do a microscopic exam first. Then if it has some of the reputed characteristics of a bigfoot hair - then by all means send it posthaste for a DNA test.
I have take this sample to UC Davis for preliminary analysis and maybe even more... will keep you all posted when I get full results. Thanks for all your suggestions
I've been slightly lamenting the fact that no one has taken me up on my offer to sequence a BF hair sample. Perhaps I'll try purchasing this item on Ebay instead of lurking around these boards:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Bigfoot-and-Yeti-hair&...8QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/Bigfoot-and-Yeti-hair&...8QQcmdZViewItem
QUOTE(BlueGenes @ Sep 21 2007, 08:54 PM)
I've been slightly lamenting the fact that no one has taken me up on my offer to sequence a BF hair sample. Perhaps I'll try purchasing this item on Ebay instead of lurking around these boards:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Bigfoot-and-Yeti-hair&...8QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/Bigfoot-and-Yeti-hair&...8QQcmdZViewItem
Unless you have money to burn, i wouldn't bother. The chances of that _not_ being some dog hair or whatever are miniscule, IMO.
I know it's a fake Robo.....somehow sarcasm doesn't always come out correctly in the printed word.
QUOTE(BlueGenes @ Sep 21 2007, 10:01 PM)
I know it's a fake Robo.....somehow sarcasm doesn't always come out correctly in the printed word.
Sorry, totally didn't pick up the sarcasm there
Don't get discouraged BlueGenes, a lot of time bigfoot research travels at a snails pace. But when something does pop it's head up - it looks like the fireworks display at a high school homecoming game. There are some times when I do not have a lot of patience with this field of research. Why I have made of lot of money for the company that makes TUMS antacids.
While you may not have gotten any samples for testing. What you have done for us is just as important. Explaining to some of us who wear a dunce cap with the words DNA on the front when ever we talk about the subject. To some of us like me, who was born when Harry Truman was President - in his first term
- it is hard to get a knowledge of the subject. And so far you have been a good instructor. I even think now I understand 18% of what you have posted 
Which for me is darn good. And that is why I zero in on any of the posts you make, I know I will learn something new. And maybe even understand it 
While you may not have gotten any samples for testing. What you have done for us is just as important. Explaining to some of us who wear a dunce cap with the words DNA on the front when ever we talk about the subject. To some of us like me, who was born when Harry Truman was President - in his first term
- it is hard to get a knowledge of the subject. And so far you have been a good instructor. I even think now I understand 18% of what you have posted Which for me is darn good. And that is why I zero in on any of the posts you make, I know I will learn something new. And maybe even understand it
Thank you, very much, for the words of encouragement Bill. It is appreciated greatly. Even when doing my (by comparison) more mundane research, that provides me with a paycheck, I sometimes have "dark nights of the soul". You fireworks analogy is most appropriate. It will be interesting to see what the future holds.
DNA research has come a long way in just a short period of time. We are currently working on a method to sequence an entire mitochondria or chloroplast genome in just a few days, at a cost of less than $100 (not including man hours). I'm fairly confident that in the coming years (5-10) entire nuclear genomes will be commonplace.
I do believe some individuals, can and should, drag BF research along this path as well. Kicking and screaming if necesary! Thanks again for the kind words.
BlueGenes
DNA research has come a long way in just a short period of time. We are currently working on a method to sequence an entire mitochondria or chloroplast genome in just a few days, at a cost of less than $100 (not including man hours). I'm fairly confident that in the coming years (5-10) entire nuclear genomes will be commonplace.
I do believe some individuals, can and should, drag BF research along this path as well. Kicking and screaming if necesary! Thanks again for the kind words.
BlueGenes
I would like to ditto what Billkirbywofb said. You have explained how to handle the hair to keep it pure for dna testing,
which is even better than what was told to me by police investigators. I thank you for that and more. I had a sample that I sent to four different specialists , no dna was done , because all of them said it was not of primate origin. One said it was probably skunk. If I come up with a sample that is worthy of dna testing, you 'll be the first one to know.
Some how I'd like to get you e address in a safe manner.
which is even better than what was told to me by police investigators. I thank you for that and more. I had a sample that I sent to four different specialists , no dna was done , because all of them said it was not of primate origin. One said it was probably skunk. If I come up with a sample that is worthy of dna testing, you 'll be the first one to know.
Some how I'd like to get you e address in a safe manner.
Well the skin/hair patch was identified and consistent with the blood.. human... why the person was up in that tree out in these woods and then got so torn up is beyond me... must have hurt thats all I know. Thank for everyones help!! Strange side note to the blood..... AB negative, what are the chances of that??
Better luck next time. It's great to see someone taking the initiative to actually test a sample. All of the anecdotes in the world don't mean a thing. Only taking actions such as yours can any resolution be had. Thanks to people like you the mystery may one day be solved.
QUOTE(Sac-squatch @ Sep 28 2007, 02:52 AM)
Well the skin/hair patch was identified and consistent with the blood.. human..
How was it identified? Did they do DNA work and did they give you the sequence they found?
I'm really confused because what you described sounded nothing like human???? Did you ever take any photos of it?
QUOTE
Strange side note to the blood..... AB negative, what are the chances of that?
1% in North America from what I can find here.Apeman
Well without trying to open up a whole new can of worms (or whoop@$$), to the people on the 'human' side of the bf fence, it would be expected that bf hairs and blood would turn out to be identified as human. AB negative ... makes ya wonder. 
QUOTE(Apeman @ Sep 28 2007, 12:17 PM)
How was it identified? Did they do DNA work and did they give you the sequence they found?
I'm really confused because what you described sounded nothing like human????
I'm really confused because what you described sounded nothing like human????
I wish I could answer your question on how it was identified by UC Davis Medical center, that is just the answer they gave back to me, they never did do a DNA test from my understanding.
You are right, what I described sounded nothing like human, beacause what I had, looked non human, but Roscoe (my cadaver dog) did signal for HUMAN decomposition, which I should have trusted. He won't signal unless it is human. Odd thing about that, he usually doesn't signal if there is no body....which now totally creeps me out. I never expect in training or squatching to actually run into a human body(although thats what we are trained to do). Makes me wonder whether or not I should go back. Sorry I couldn't be of more help in answering your questions. Let me know if I can try to further elaborate, or if there is something very important that I have missed and need to clarify with UCD Med Center. I am not interested in wasting there time anymore, but if there is something crucial I must ask them, I will.
Sac-
I just sent you a pm, let me know if you don't get it.
I just sent you a pm, let me know if you don't get it.
this is a question for the genetic experts here (Bluegenes and WY)...I posted on this subject before but it is time to do so again
There is a animal genetics lab at UC Davis -- plse see their website
http://www.vgl.ucdavis.edu/forensics/index.html
Terry Gross Fresh Air interviewed the head of this UC Davis lab on Feb 14 2006 ..see podcast at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5204605
Terry asked her about her most unusual inquiry. She answered "...to test a BF hair?". After much guffawing Terry asked her "well..?" The director said it was inconclusive because it did not match anything in her data base. Despite her normally awesome interviewing skills, Terry failed to ask the obvious follow-up questions that any of us would have asked. I wish one of you guys would listen to this podcast interview and contact this PhD genius who is on the public payroll, has all the facilities (publicly funded) at her disposal to get some answers, but nevertheless disdained giving a straight answer on NPR (publicly funded) and got away with it. Oh and if you feel like resuming your condescension in her direction, be my guest!
Thanks, LL
There is a animal genetics lab at UC Davis -- plse see their website
http://www.vgl.ucdavis.edu/forensics/index.html
Terry Gross Fresh Air interviewed the head of this UC Davis lab on Feb 14 2006 ..see podcast at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5204605
Terry asked her about her most unusual inquiry. She answered "...to test a BF hair?". After much guffawing Terry asked her "well..?" The director said it was inconclusive because it did not match anything in her data base. Despite her normally awesome interviewing skills, Terry failed to ask the obvious follow-up questions that any of us would have asked. I wish one of you guys would listen to this podcast interview and contact this PhD genius who is on the public payroll, has all the facilities (publicly funded) at her disposal to get some answers, but nevertheless disdained giving a straight answer on NPR (publicly funded) and got away with it. Oh and if you feel like resuming your condescension in her direction, be my guest!
Thanks, LL
Taking a break from work, I just listened to the NPR interview. A few notes: The lab the guest works in mostly does DNA profiling (also called DNA finger printing). It's the same technique used for human DNA evidence in court cases. It's a very different technique from what I have been proposing.
Profiling produces a gel with many bands of different lengths. It's very much like a finger print. Every individual will produce a gel with a unique set of bands. It's a perfectly fine technique to compare one persons DNA to another. In the case of animals, you also need to know what species you are testing or the reactions to work. This technique does not result in any sequence data. Only with sequence data can one the position of an unknown specimen in the "tree of life".
I am a bit peeved by a few things she said. She mentioned "I can't match a BF DNA sample to anything if I don't have a previous sample of BF DNA to compare it with". As Apeman and I have explained a few times.............thats complete rubbish!!! She also said "If I were to compare a DNA sequence to the sequences in GenBank and there was no match........that species must not exist". The logic of that statement makes no sense to me.
While I am sure the guest is very good at basic DNA profiling, I think the type of DNA work I am suggesting may be beyond her scope and understanding. She is likely a good lab rat, who can process prepackaged DNA kits well, but she's not a researcher, and hence will never look for anything she has not previously seen in her experiance.
Did I say enough Lab Lover?
Profiling produces a gel with many bands of different lengths. It's very much like a finger print. Every individual will produce a gel with a unique set of bands. It's a perfectly fine technique to compare one persons DNA to another. In the case of animals, you also need to know what species you are testing or the reactions to work. This technique does not result in any sequence data. Only with sequence data can one the position of an unknown specimen in the "tree of life".
I am a bit peeved by a few things she said. She mentioned "I can't match a BF DNA sample to anything if I don't have a previous sample of BF DNA to compare it with". As Apeman and I have explained a few times.............thats complete rubbish!!! She also said "If I were to compare a DNA sequence to the sequences in GenBank and there was no match........that species must not exist". The logic of that statement makes no sense to me.
While I am sure the guest is very good at basic DNA profiling, I think the type of DNA work I am suggesting may be beyond her scope and understanding. She is likely a good lab rat, who can process prepackaged DNA kits well, but she's not a researcher, and hence will never look for anything she has not previously seen in her experiance.
Did I say enough Lab Lover?
QUOTE(Sac-squatch)
AB negative, what are the chances of that??
Get that guy's name, I might need a transfusion someday! Yep, I'm in the 1%.
QUOTE(BlueGenes)
She also said "If I were to compare a DNA sequence to the sequences in GenBank and there was no match........that species must not exist". The logic of that statement makes no sense to me.
I know practically nothing about DNA other than what I've read about in my library of true crime novels, but that statement makes no sense to me either BG. So she is saying that if a species' DNA is not on file the species must not exist. I guess we can stop looking for any new species since they can never be proven to exist then. And this is the head of the UC Davis lab? Strange, very strange.
Here’s a way to identify sasquatch DNA:
Make a consensus sequence between human and chimpanzee mtDNA. You will find a number of areas in which the two sequences show significant differences. Design primers to the flanking homologous sequence of those areas. Do the PCRs, sequence the products…
The assumption is that the areas where chimp and human sequence differs will also differ in sasquatches – and be significantly different than human or chimp.
Make a consensus sequence between human and chimpanzee mtDNA. You will find a number of areas in which the two sequences show significant differences. Design primers to the flanking homologous sequence of those areas. Do the PCRs, sequence the products…
The assumption is that the areas where chimp and human sequence differs will also differ in sasquatches – and be significantly different than human or chimp.
QUOTE(Doubleyouex Whyzee @ Oct 2 2007, 06:58 PM)
.....Design primers to the flanking homologous sequence of those areas.....
Oh goody, are they still doing that? Designing primers to flanking homologous sequences? Good. Now, if I just knew what a flanking homologous sequence was and why it needs to be primed I'd be set. 
<tap tap...still not sure if this thing is on>
QUOTE(JayleeD @ Oct 2 2007, 06:39 PM)
Get that guy's name, I might need a transfusion someday! Yep, I'm in the 1%.
No worries Jay... I'm O Rh neg... I'd give my blood to you! In fact, my next donation day is the 26th. What can I say, I love those snacks the little ole' ladies give you afterwards.
QUOTE(Doubleyouex Whyzee @ Oct 2 2007, 06:58 PM)
Here€š€žs a way to identify sasquatch DNA:...
This is what's always been done but usually on a broader scale to include all apes, or primates, or mammals. Arguably more specific primers might narrow the contamination risks but since many results are coming back as human, which is presumably one of the closest relatives, it doesn't really matter.... unless your going to try consensus primers excluding humans?
And I mostly agree with Bluegenes as usual- (though after hearing it I don't doubt this woman's expertise, just her initiative.) Without even hearing the tape, the director's statement about needing a match is of course true if she's talking about traditional DNA fingerprinting, which is very different than what we are all advocating. But their apparent explanation strikes me as being just plain lazy because if they got clean DNA for a fingerprint, another hours work and $50 would provide the sequence we're talking about and answer the big question of what the hair was actually from.
Apeman
I just listened and it sounds like they had a request but never ran the hair sample....because of the incorrect "no match" argument. Unbelievable.
So Apeman and BlueGenes,
Are you suggesting that there is further action I should be taking?
Are you suggesting that there is further action I should be taking?
QUOTE(Apeman @ Oct 2 2007, 11:43 PM)
This is what's always been done but usually on a broader scale to include all apes, or primates, or mammals. Arguably more specific primers might narrow the contamination risks but since many results are coming back as human, which is presumably one of the closest relatives, it doesn't really matter.... unless your going to try consensus primers excluding humans?
So you think to be viable a technique has to be immune from human DNA contamination? You are dreaming.
Edit to fix quote tags..
QUOTE(Doubleyouex Whyzee @ Oct 3 2007, 05:48 AM)
So you think to be viable a technique has to be immune from human DNA contamination? You are dreaming.
I don't think you understood what I was saying. No, I'm not dreaming. My point was that any technique removing the possibility of human contamination, which is of course possible, is likely to similarly miss the target DNA unless it's quite distant from humans. You may not be aware that there is a long history of results coming back as "human," which some believe is definitely evidence of contamination, while leading others to start to wonder if these beings might be a LOT closer to humans than most ever suspected. I was kind of thinking out loud and sorry if I wasn't clear or I didn't finish my thought. No need to jump down my throat, thanks. I should have simply said that what you were suggesting is no different than what has been talked about and tried for years. That isn't meant as a slight to you, just an explanation to everyone else who might think you're suggesting something novel that might finally yield fruitful results.Sac-Squatch,
It's hard to suggest further steps without knowing what they actually did. Did you pay for anything? If they did sequence your sample there isn't much more that could be done, though sequencing other regions might be interesting. But if they only morphologically typed it, or did standard DNA fingerpringitng, then yes, there is more that could be done. Hope that helps.
Apeman
Dear Apeman, so sorry for my vicious attack. I don’t know what came over me. (I am a beast.)
I am aware that results have come back “human.” But I don’t think there are enough such results – that are good – to worry that human and sasquatch DNA may be quite the same.
I think it’s just that there are very few good samples (actual sasquatch and containing a decent amount of DNA), that contamination is a big problem, and that the good samples are pretty much lost – they are mishandled, not analyzed well, or at all. It’s like you all are saying: most DNA experts consulted on the question don’t really understand the issue.
I don’t think you’re right about the approach I outlined being just so been there, tried that. Not at all. Please don’t take offense. I’m just disagreeing with you.
I am aware that results have come back “human.” But I don’t think there are enough such results – that are good – to worry that human and sasquatch DNA may be quite the same.
I think it’s just that there are very few good samples (actual sasquatch and containing a decent amount of DNA), that contamination is a big problem, and that the good samples are pretty much lost – they are mishandled, not analyzed well, or at all. It’s like you all are saying: most DNA experts consulted on the question don’t really understand the issue.
I don’t think you’re right about the approach I outlined being just so been there, tried that. Not at all. Please don’t take offense. I’m just disagreeing with you.
QUOTE(Doubleyouex Whyzee @ Oct 3 2007, 08:37 AM)
I don’t think you’re right about the approach I outlined being just so been there, tried that. Not at all. Please don’t take offense. I’m just disagreeing with you.
I'm not offended at all, there is just more information outisde the public realm than most might be aware of. So your opinion is fair enough, but I can't say much more than "take my word for it."
Out of curiosity, what other approach do you think anyone has taken in order to obtain DNA sequences?
Apeman
PS- I assume you were being sarcastic about your "vicious attack" but in case you weren't, it was less vicious than it was snide and arrogant, but we've all been guilty of that. Yet another reminder for us all to be more courteous to each other, me included.
I am now, also, very curious as to how the UC Davis lab analyzed the hair and tissue sample. Any further and specific details would certainly be appreciated! Ok, I guess I did slam the UC Davis lab tech NPR interview a bit hard. I got thinking about it last night and here is what I came up with: The person interviewed is a forensic scientist. As such, she seemed competant and dedicated to her job and field. But, she is not a geneticist. Forensics using alot of genetic tools, but the fields are different. Forensics "steals" techniques from genetics to answer the questions they are interested in, such as "was this person at the scene of the crime?". Forensic scientists don't look for things outside the normal realm of posibilities.......they simply don't have the time and resources and it's NOT their job to do so.
Furthermore, forensic scientists are not phylogeneticists. Like forensic scientists, phylogeneticists "steal" techniques from the geneticists to answer the questions they are interested in, such as "How different is this specimen, population or species from other specimens, populations or species". Since this field is open to "discovering" unknowns and has the tools and knowledge to do so, it's the direction that I, ApeMan and some others have been proposing as BF research's best hope (short of finding an actual body).
Concerning primers: I guess some of you know that universal primers for many classification levels of organisms have been around for a while (species, family, order and even kingdom). Luckily, that's a wheel that will not need to be reinvented. We won't need to line up homologous sequences and design new primers. The sequence for these primers can be found in many publications and the cost of buying them is rather cheap (I paid about $20 for the last pair I ordered).
ApeMan did bring up an interesting point. If BF is VERY closely related to Homo sapien some (even many) sequences might not be able to differentiate between the two species. Even is this is the case, I'm still hopeful. I'm confident that with enough sequence data a clear difference will be apparent. We're at the point were DNA can infer ones ethnic history.....so eventually finding some sequences unique to BF is almost a given. You just have to look.
Furthermore, forensic scientists are not phylogeneticists. Like forensic scientists, phylogeneticists "steal" techniques from the geneticists to answer the questions they are interested in, such as "How different is this specimen, population or species from other specimens, populations or species". Since this field is open to "discovering" unknowns and has the tools and knowledge to do so, it's the direction that I, ApeMan and some others have been proposing as BF research's best hope (short of finding an actual body).
Concerning primers: I guess some of you know that universal primers for many classification levels of organisms have been around for a while (species, family, order and even kingdom). Luckily, that's a wheel that will not need to be reinvented. We won't need to line up homologous sequences and design new primers. The sequence for these primers can be found in many publications and the cost of buying them is rather cheap (I paid about $20 for the last pair I ordered).
ApeMan did bring up an interesting point. If BF is VERY closely related to Homo sapien some (even many) sequences might not be able to differentiate between the two species. Even is this is the case, I'm still hopeful. I'm confident that with enough sequence data a clear difference will be apparent. We're at the point were DNA can infer ones ethnic history.....so eventually finding some sequences unique to BF is almost a given. You just have to look.
I move that BlueGenes should be given a chance to analyze as much suspected Sasquatch DNA as possible. As he has stated, there are newer and better techniques available today, and I am sure that many of us would be extremely interested in learning the results based on these new methods.
I also move that we somehow locate the existing alleged Sasquatch samples and contact whomever is in possession of them.
Who is good at locating?
Who is good at contacting?
Who is good at getting people to give them samples of their BF samples?
I am good at making motions and asking guestions...
(I am also good at audio transcription, bookkeeping, record keeping, internet research, taking care of animals, and teaching algebra. If any of that would be helpful at all to anybody's BF research progress, please let me know. I'll do what I can to help.)
I also move that we somehow locate the existing alleged Sasquatch samples and contact whomever is in possession of them.
Who is good at locating?
Who is good at contacting?
Who is good at getting people to give them samples of their BF samples?
I am good at making motions and asking guestions...
(I am also good at audio transcription, bookkeeping, record keeping, internet research, taking care of animals, and teaching algebra. If any of that would be helpful at all to anybody's BF research progress, please let me know. I'll do what I can to help.)
Blue genes:
Thanks so much for taking the time to listen to the podcast and for adding your clarifications. Although all this is way over my head, it sounds like someone like you should speak with this lab director. Why? Because obviously BF samples (one, at least) are being submitted to her in her official capacity where for whatever reason they disappear. Her public (national broadcast no less) treatment of the subject as a joke, when she and only she had the power to duly investigate an extremely rare sample submitted in good faith, evince at best ignorance of the efforts being made by many BF reseachers and at worst elitist arrogance. When I first heard the interview live I was really offended. But that is not the right approach, I know. I hope someone like you can at least get her attention so that if she is not willing to treat the subject fairly, at least pass the samples on to someone willing to perform the tests you guys are discussing here.
LL
Thanks so much for taking the time to listen to the podcast and for adding your clarifications. Although all this is way over my head, it sounds like someone like you should speak with this lab director. Why? Because obviously BF samples (one, at least) are being submitted to her in her official capacity where for whatever reason they disappear. Her public (national broadcast no less) treatment of the subject as a joke, when she and only she had the power to duly investigate an extremely rare sample submitted in good faith, evince at best ignorance of the efforts being made by many BF reseachers and at worst elitist arrogance. When I first heard the interview live I was really offended. But that is not the right approach, I know. I hope someone like you can at least get her attention so that if she is not willing to treat the subject fairly, at least pass the samples on to someone willing to perform the tests you guys are discussing here.
LL
QUOTE(Lab Lover @ Oct 3 2007, 12:50 PM)
Because obviously BF samples (one, at least) are being submitted to her in her official capacity where for whatever reason they disappear.
Again, it sounded to me like someone inquired, but never submitted anything- because of the director's negative attitude/admission that she couldn't help/lack of imagination and/or lack of scientific approach. I agree that any such sample is potentially worthy of full analysis but for all we know it was analyzed somewhere else Ken Ken Ken Yielding the usual non-result.
I'll take this opportunity to again remind everyone that there have been dozens of samples analyzed by different labs all over the country- none providing the proverbial smoking gun. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying and it doesn't mean we aren't. Bluegenes offer has only been on the table a few weeks and only to this very limited and generally suspicious community. I'd encourage Sac-squatch to send Bluegenes a hair or two if he can spare them from his samples and I'd reassure everyone that this is an active area of research on many fronts. No need to push the eject buttons yet.
Lab Lover- Are you free for pet sitting so I can get out in the field more when my broken leg heals?
Apeman
Broken leg?? What did you do?? Please tell me you did it chasing after a bigfoot in the dark, right???
I am absolutely available for pet-sitting, Apeman! What kind of pet do you have? Broken leg!? I'm sorry about that. What did you do?
QUOTE(hopeful @ Oct 3 2007, 02:23 PM)
What did you do?
Let's just leave it at "something stupid" and keep on with the thread, but thanks for the sympathy. The pet sitting was also a joke. I just let them roam the wilds and fend for themselves when I need to go away....
Apeman
Apeman wrote: "Out of curiosity, what other approach do you think anyone has taken in order to obtain DNA sequences?"
To start very generally, for instance with primers that identify the order of the animal. Then narrow it down with more and more specific primers until you can determine the species. Can you tell me of anyone doing what I described?
To start very generally, for instance with primers that identify the order of the animal. Then narrow it down with more and more specific primers until you can determine the species. Can you tell me of anyone doing what I described?
If primers are chosen that perfectly recognize human and chimp DNA they will probably recognize sasquatch DNA. (Areas of homology are probably shared between human, chimp, and sasquatch.)
If the DNA between the primers is significantly different between human and chimp, there are probably some significant differences there between human and sasquatch too.
Many areas of the human/chimp mitochondrial genome fit this description – runs of 100 to 400 base pairs with a dozen or two base differences between human and chimp, for which homologous primers can be made to amplify.
If your sample is from a human you’ll get right-sized products on your gel and the sequences will be exactly human. If the sample is from another animal (besides sasquatch) you won’t get products at all. If the sample is sasquatch, you’ll get human sized products with base changes… that aren’t published as SNPs. You’ll keep amplifying these mtDNA human/chimp divergent stretches, seeing more base changes… and then you’ll see if you can use the same approach on nuclear DNA. (At this stage you’ll be bursting, unable to hold your pipetter steady.)
It’s easy.
If the DNA between the primers is significantly different between human and chimp, there are probably some significant differences there between human and sasquatch too.
Many areas of the human/chimp mitochondrial genome fit this description – runs of 100 to 400 base pairs with a dozen or two base differences between human and chimp, for which homologous primers can be made to amplify.
If your sample is from a human you’ll get right-sized products on your gel and the sequences will be exactly human. If the sample is from another animal (besides sasquatch) you won’t get products at all. If the sample is sasquatch, you’ll get human sized products with base changes… that aren’t published as SNPs. You’ll keep amplifying these mtDNA human/chimp divergent stretches, seeing more base changes… and then you’ll see if you can use the same approach on nuclear DNA. (At this stage you’ll be bursting, unable to hold your pipetter steady.)
It’s easy.
Not to offend you (really!), but you're a little bit off on your descrption Doub. You have the basic idea and you're almost there...and that's great! I'm glad you have a good grasp of the basics (too many don't). The stuff concerning the primers, gel bands, SNPs and mtDNA versus nuDNA needs some tweeking. It's been a long day and I don't really have the energy to explain it all right now. Perhaps in a later post. Good night and keep thinking.
QUOTE(Sac-squatch @ Oct 3 2007, 01:16 AM)
So Apeman and BlueGenes,
Are you suggesting that there is further action I should be taking?
Are you suggesting that there is further action I should be taking?
If I were you, I would...........
I would also go back to the area with your dog if you haven't already........... and why do you have a cadaver dog anyways?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.