8055 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

454 GROSS ET AL 2 3 4 5 6 7 122kb-........ 61kb-Pi~~!!!!~~~ Ii"" '._III:S'" ".. ,',""., t=:~!!~ , - "" ...... .""" -.' 1',1- - tII .. ........ I! ;;;; III eo ~,. .. . ...,~ &r:I .a. a:;a i.;; ;,,~ r e;;i p"" ~ ~, " 3,0 kb - ~ .'.,.,. , '" ,....-" ,-. 1,6 kb - ~ to ,.. t: ~~~ i,'. . ! '" 4 ~ w FIGURE 4,- The DNA fingerprints of seven smallmouIh bass fry collected from nest 41 in Lake Opeongo (human minisatellite probe 33,15 and enzyme Alu I), were obtained with other combinations, such as those shown in Figures 3 and 4, Hybridizations of oligonucleotide probes (CACh, (GAT A)4, and (GACGCTGGAGGTTCT)4 were very weak under various conditions, suggesting low sequence homology in small mouth bass, Oli- gonucleotide probe (GGA T)4 generated only bands that were approximately 6 kb or smaller (Figure 3) and was therefore judged to not be useful for this study. Human mini satellite probes 33,15 (Figure 4) and 33,6 generated fingerprint patterns comparable to those of (GACAk but they were not used because of the relative ease of use of and access to the oligonucleotide probe (GACAk Other enzymes tested were excluded because they either produced too few (Alu 1) or too many (Taq I) bands or were judged to be too expensive com- pared with Hae III. The DNA fingerprints generated with Hae 1Il and (GACA)4 for small mouth bass fry from dif- ferent nests within Jones Bay showed that the bands are' polymorphic across individuals from different nests (Figure 5), This observation is sup- ported by the average Sl of 52,5 ::!: 5,5 computed for the comparison of bands between fry or guard- ian males of different nests (Table I), The average Sl for comparisons between fry from nests that were spaced closely together in clusters was 67,2 ::!: 6,0 (Table I), The double-blind test confirmed our ability to