Drafts

• The American Goldfinch (Spinus tristis) feeds on seeds almost exclusively including sunflowers, thistle, asters, and seeds from grasses, alder, birch, red cedar, and elm. They balance on seedheads of plants to pluck the seeds. Crack open seeds with their short, stout, cone-shaped beaks. The Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) feeds mainly on fruits and seeds year round, supplemented by protein-rich insects, by swallowing piece of fruit whole. They feed while perched on twigs, but can also grab fruit while flying close to branches. To hunt insects, they may use exposed branches or open water areas to zig-zag through the air and catch insects.

With the rise of scientific issues such as genetic engineering in public debates, “science is becoming more politicized and controversial with widespread societal implications” (Rose, Korzekwa, Brossard, Scheufele & Heisler, 2017). As such, the importance of public attitudes towards these issues is increasing, as is engaging the public with these topics in order to increase knowledge and awareness (Rose, Korzekwa, Brossard, Scheufele & Heisler, 2017). People’s attitudes are influenced by their knowledge, and so people with different backgrounds will often have varying attitudes towards complex topics depending on how familiar they are with them. The University of Massachusetts Amherst has over 100 different undergraduate majors, and presumably people in different majors will have had different levels of exposure to the topic of genome editing. In this study we investigated whether or not there is any observable connection between college major and people’s attitudes towards the use of genome editing to treat genetic disorders.

Genome-editing has been met with both celebration and skepticism from the scientific community and the general public, with concerns about the viability, ethics, and long- and short-term consequences of modifying the human genome. As genetic disorders are caused by DNA abnormalities, they can only be “cured” by targeting the disorder at the genomic level, recently made possible by new advances in molecular technology. Both somatic cells and germline cells can be edited, and while any changes made to the DNA of an individual's somatic cells will only affect that individual, changes made to their germline DNA could be inherited by their future children. The technology at present cannot guarantee that “unintended modifications created through an editing procedure would not result in a devastating long-term outcome such as cancer or adverse developmental effects if one were to modify a zygote” (Kohn, Porteus & Scharenberg, 2016), which has lead to mixed scientific and public opinions about its use.

Genome editing (or gene editing) is a type of genetic engineering that involves modifying a living organism’s genome. Specific regions of the genome are deliberately targeted and DNA sequences are inserted, deleted, or otherwise modified to modify the sequence at that location and alter gene function, either by preventing or enabling expression, or by changing how the gene is expressed (“Genome editing in brief: what, why and how?”, n.d.). Genetic disorders can affect both somatic (body) cells and germline cells (cells involved in reproduction, such as sperm and eggs). While genetic mutations in the DNA of somatic cells only affect the individual and cannot be inherited, changes in the germline DNA are heritable and can affect future offspring (Ormond et al. 2017)

A possible explanation for these results is identified in a review of the different responses of skin temperature to physical exercise: during the first few minutes of high intensity exercises such as jumping jacks there is an initial reduction in the temperature of the skin as blood flow is redirected to the active muscles (Neves et al. 2015). Because we were measuring body temperature by taking the temperature at the temple we may have been just measuring skin temperature, and the slight decrease could therefore be explained by the skin’s initial cooling period at the onset of exercise. The fact that we were recording body temperature at the forehead is one of the variables that may have affected our results, as we were not directly measuring core temperature. Additionally we could not control for the natural differences in body temperature between females and males, nor for the weight and fitness levels of each person. In terms of the exercise, 1 minute may not have been enough time to truly test its effects on body temperature, and we could not control for the amount of effort put in by each member of the group during the exercise. To create a clearer picture of thermoregulation, this experiment could be repeated with longer periods of exercise, and using more accurate methods of recording core body temperature than forehead thermometers. Additionally the measurements should all be taken at the same time of day to control for natural temperature fluctuations with circadian rhythms, and the gender, weight, and height of the subjects should be kept as constant as possible.

Problems that arose during research was the lack of literature associated for each category of inasive species assessment. Solid quantifiable data such as the ratio of inasive plant species abundance to native species abundance was non-existant. For this, more research in the field is neccessary. Figures such as cost was uncertain, in terms of annual investment, there was no data, only potential costs of implication of herbicides and protective barriers. Still some insight was drawn from the minimal data that was provided. Future assessment methods can draw on the bioecomic framework, but the devised numerical value of threat determined for each invasive species is perhaps insignificant to the threats of all the invasive species combined.

The two parameters for this graph are the slope and the y-intercept. The y-intercept is voltage and the slope is the resistance. The values are as we expected, they were 96.3 for the slope and -0.0013 for the y-intercept. The error of the slope is 0.297 and the error of the y-intercept is 0.0102. The relationship that we described for question 3 matches up perfectly with Ohm’s law. We stipulated that the relationship was directly proportional and looking at Ohm’s law this seems to be true if the voltage were to increase then the current should have a corresponding increase.

This is my project abstract. There has long been a desire for genetic enhancement in order to cure genetics diseases or alter the physical appearance of someone. With modern gene editing tools it is now possible to treat disease as well as select for cosmetic enhancements. However, with the ability to alter a person’s genetic makeup, comes the question if it’s considered ethical to be changing what was naturally chosen. Scientists have discovered that part of some bacterial immune systems have CRISPRs, which are are specialized stretches of DNA. A specific protein associated with this system is Cas9, an RNA-guided DNA endonuclease that can cut foreign DNA at specific sites. Together utilizing CRISPR and the Cas9 enzyme, genome engineering is now possible. With this new biotechnology, many scientists are delaying the use of gene editing in humans for a multitude of ethical concerns. For our project we discuss the ethics and applications behind human genomic engineering, specifically when used to treat inherited medical diseases or for cosmetic enhancements. To measure the University of Massachusetts Amherst student’s public opinion a mass survey was distributed. We found that gene editing for disease prevention was considered ethical while gene editing for cosmetics was not.

Bradi1g72430 was hypothesized to play a role in cell wall biogenesis, so it was expected to be more highly expressed with increase tissue growth. We hypothesized that if Brachypodium distachyon plants were treated with indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), which stimulates root growth, we would see increased gene expression due to the increased root growth and subsequent formation of cell walls.

    We set up two 30 mL agar plates, one with 1.5 µL of ethanol (control) and one with 1.5 µL of 0.0001M IAA for a final concentration of 5 nM IAA (treated). Once set, four B. distachyon seeds were planted on each plate, and the plates were placed in the incubator for seven days, covered by a blue-minus filter, before the entire root of each plant was removed for RNA extraction. The four control plants were labeled as samples 1-4 while the four treated plants were labeled as samples 5-8. The extracted RNA was quantified with NanoDrop (Table 3) and visualized via agarose gel electrophoresis (Figure 7).

In order to gain large qualities of the DNA of interest, DNA and primer amplification is necessary. DNA and primer sequences can be amplified through polymerase chain reaction. In order to look at a particular SNPs, restriction enzymes for that SNP should be amplified using PCR-restriction fragment length, RFLP, also called cleaved amplified polymorphic sequencing, CAP. In the case that there is not a specific digestion enzyme that exists for a particular trait of interest, there is a way to create one. These enzymes are called derived cleaved amplified polymorphic sequences, or dCAPS. These reactions cut and amplify a specific single polymorphism (SNP). A dCAP is used on a mismatched PCR primer to make or get rid of a restriction site based on the particular genotype of the SNP being looked at. The primer used to create a dCAP is mismatched to create the restriction site of interest and the differing alleles are mutated. Primers used do not overlap or mutate the SNP. The restriction enzyme will cut at one site, so if the DNA sequence is cut into two fragments then both strands of DNA contain the allele. However, in the case that the individual is heterozygous, the restriction enzyme will cut only on one strand of DNA resulting in three strands of DNA. Additionally, if the DNA is homozygous for the other allele, there will be no cuts made (J. Laney, dCAPS Primer Design PowerPoint. Moodle.1, 1-16 (2018)).