My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7717
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7717
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:30 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 3:04:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7717
Author
Rosenfeld, M. J.
Title
Genetic Analysis of the Colorado River Gila
USFW Year
n.d.
USFW - Doc Type
Non-fatal Sampling, Cell Culture, Chromosomal Analysis and Electrophoresis.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />~... -.111-'. "'. ~ ,"''''OJ UL.''''~' ~... J. J. ." """l1.1hl t;:"l. H .....6 L cta; (Jug yl I tc.:'C:H.H..1 J (Jill J. ~E: .'iI.JPfl'1,I1 V." LILa 'J..()6ij <br /> <br />necessity to sac~ifice o~ othe~wise t~aumatize more fish. <br /> <br />Nine of the ten assayed proteins did not appear inte~speci- <br /> <br />fically diffe~ent among the Colo~ado Rive~ Gila upon electropho- <br /> <br />~etic examination, although there were distinctions between these <br /> <br />species and the Utah chub (e.g., hemoglobin, este~ase>. Lactate <br /> <br />dehvd~oQenase (LDH>, on the oth~~hand~ <br /> <br />yielded a ~esult that <br /> <br />allowed .clisc~imination between theth~ee Colo~ado River Gila <br /> <br />spp. <br /> <br />The~e was a distinct difference in mig~ation of the fa~t <br /> <br />LDH allele between the roundtail chub and the othe~ two Colo~ado <br /> <br />River chubs~ with mig~ation being fu~ther in the ~oundtail chub <br /> <br />(Fig. 3>. No migration differences we~e found between LDH derived <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />j <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br />~. <br />~~ <br /> <br />from humpback and bony tail chubs, but a repeatable inten~ity '. <br /> <br />difference ~as consistently seen when LDH was assayed on extracts ~ <br /> <br />~ separated in acrvlamide but~ot sta~ch. <br />.. <br /> <br />This was independent o! <br /> <br />\:issue'type; .,f in homogenates as well a's mu~cl e. tissue extracts <br /> <br />gave identical result~. Intensi~y diffe~ences <br /> <br />were also indepen- <br />... <br /> <br />dent of protein concentration. <br /> <br />Little effort was given to <br /> <br />equalizing protein concentrations in electrophoretic samples. As <br /> <br />long as a reference sample (i.e., any sample coming from a known <br /> <br />individual) was p~esent in a gel~ <br /> <br />it was possible to accu~ately <br /> <br />identify any sample. <br /> <br />FLlrthe~mo~e~ <br /> <br />the Dexte~ hybrids we~e also <br /> <br />properly identified with respect to parentage. These had been <br /> <br />provided as unknowns with the parentages revealed only after this <br /> <br />electrophoretic pilot study. <br /> <br />LDH might be a good biochemical <br /> <br />f1i.,., ,- k Pt. f 01' <br /> <br />JdCT,tJfying Ccdof'cl.do F~:ivC'I' chub,::. C:~': ]onq dO: ;:; known <br /> <br />...~ <br /> <br /> <br />."i:. <br />~I <br />(1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.