WEEK 2 BIO2071 MICROBIOLOGY 2071

WEEK 2 BIO2071 MICROBIOLOGY 2071.

Review Sheet

Based on your knowledge from the lab manual readings from this week, create a 2- to 3-page document in Microsoft Word for providing answers to questions in the following review sheets:

Submission Details

  • Support your responses with examples.
  • Cite any sources in APA format.
  • Name your document SU_BIO2071_W2_A2_LastName_FirstInitial.doc.
  • Submit your document to the Submissions Area by the due date assigned   Week 2 – Review Sheet Exercise 4: Pure bacterial colonies 1. When an agar plate is inoculated, why is the loop sterilized after the initial inoculum is put on? 2. Distinguish between a pure culture and a mixed culture. 3. Define a bacterial colony. List four characteristics by which bacterial colonies may be distinguished. 4. Why should a Petri dish not be left open for any extended period? 5. Why does the streaking method you used to inoculate your plates result in isolated colonies? Exercise 5: Pour plate and streaking technique to obtain pure cultures 1. Discuss the relative convenience of pour- and streak-plate techniques in culturing clinical specimens. 2. How do you decide which colonies should be picked from a plate culture of a mixed flora? 3. Why is it necessary to make pure subcultures of organisms grown from clinical specimens? 4. What kinds of clinical specimens may yield a mixed flora in bacterial cultures? 5. When more than one colony type appears in pure culture, what are the most likely sources of extraneous contamination? Exercise 3: Primary media for isolation of microorganisms 1. Define a differential medium and discuss its purpose. 2. Define a selective medium and describe its uses. 3. Why is MacConkey agar selective as well as differential? 4. Why is blood agar useful as a primary isolation medium? 5. What is the major difference between Modified Thayer-Martin (MTM) and chocolate agar? When would you use MTM rather than chocolate ag

WEEK 2 BIO2071 MICROBIOLOGY 2071

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Biology 10 Lab Assignment-Completing The Chemistry In Practice Lab

Biology 10 Lab Assignment-Completing The Chemistry In Practice Lab. Need to watch all of the videos that we required. 

****To receive full points, you must submit your completed lab (summary questions and all) online via Canvas This will count your lab points .Be sure you read the lab before you start the lab.

How Does Knowing About Chemistry Help Us Understand Things Like Climate or Nutrition?

Here is the information you’ll need to complete the Chemistry in Practice lab at home. If you haven’t finish reviewing your lecture notes, be sure to review the lecture on Chemistry here – Chemistry as a Tool for Biologists. Once you’ve watched the lecture video,

  • Open up your lab manual
  • Read over the entire lab so you get an idea of what we are doing
  • Then, go back to the first paragraph and then let’s get started!

These videos will walk you through the lab. Be sure you scroll down and watch them all

Chemistry in Practice walk through (Links to an external site.)

Unique Properties of Water

This first section deals with the water molecule. We’ve provided you with some images from your lecture slides. Click on the images to take a closer look or use the PowerPoint Slides

water molecule

Water Demo (Links to an external site.)water demo

This image may help you answer the last question

tree water image

Density of Water

This section covers Ice and the changes in density (or mass per unit volume)

ice

Water and Energy Storage

This section covers why water has a High Specific Heat. This image will help you to think about the questions concerning our weather and climate.

rainshadow

Importance of pH

This section covers the pH Scale. Be sure you use this chart to fill in the one in your lab before you complete the rest of the questions.

ph-scale

pH demo (Links to an external site.)pH demo

Once you complete the lab, you can submit photos of the pages or scan them and submit them here. Be sure it’s a format that we can open like a pdf or word document. (We can’t open Apple Files or Google docs :)

Here is the answer key: BIOL 10 2 – Chemistry in Practice answer key 

LAB MANUAL BIOLOGY 10

 

LANEY COLLEGE BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT

Fall 2019 update

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Laney College Biology 10 Lab Manual

Laney College Biology 10 Lab Manual This lab manual was created by Laney faculty to help you see how Biology can be applied to your everyday life. Each lab has tips on how to help you retain all the information by applying what you know. Being prepared for lab is the best way to retain more information, so make sure you read the lab ahead of time. Table of Contents

1. What Makes Science Important pg. 3

2. Chemistry In Practice pg. 13

3. Using a Microscope pg. 21

4. You Are What You Eat pg. 29

5. What Makes Something a Cell pg. 45

6. Why Do We Breathe Oxygen pg. 55

7. How Do Cells Make Other Cells pg. 65

8. What’s So Great About DNA pg. 75

9. How Things Change ` pg. 91

10. Natural Selection in Practice pg. 103

11. Evolution of Plants & Fungus pg. 113

12. Animal Phylogeny pg. 127

13. Human Evolution pg. 147

 

 

Hints for Lab success:

 Read the lab ahead of time

 Make a list of the words in bold with definitions

 Make summary tables of the experiments

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 Laney College Biology 10 Lab Manual

What Makes Science Important? Science can be described in two ways: one, it’s a body of knowledge. This means there are scientific references that people can use, compare, research and review. Two, it’s a way of learning. Science provides a step-wise process to ask questions and provide information about those questions. Not necessarily ‘Truths’, but information about the natural world. Anywhere you go, any language you speak, the scientific method is pretty much the same. This way, researchers half a world apart can read about each other’s work, talk to each other about the process or even try to replicate it. You are going to work in groups based on where you sit. Introduce yourself to the other people at your table. Scenario: Say you and a friend decide to walk Lake Merritt every Saturday morning over the summer, as a way to get heart healthy. By the third week, you notice that the water level seems to be different each week. As you finish your way around the lake, you and your friend decide to try to figure out why. Step One: What do you see? Here, Observation is Key. Any good study starts with observing things and asking questions about what you see. From that you can separate some things that may not be worth looking into and things that may help you find answers. Now, talk to your lab group about possible reasons why the lake water level might be different.

 What did you see walking around the lake?

 What are some things you might look for to help you determine what causes the water to change? Here is a good place to look up reference material that is fairly well established and can give us more background about the lake in general. It’s important to be able to distinguish between information that’s been time tested (reference material) and information that’s on the cutting edge (research material). Both are important and useful, but one is more reliable than the other. Go to STATION ONE and see what type of information you can glean about the history of Lake Merritt.

 What type of information was available? Choose between reference material and research material and explain why.

 Look at the Map of Lake Merritt. What do you notice about the direction from which the water flows? What is between the main campus and the Football Stadium? What might that tell you about the water flow?

Step Two: Making a Hypothesis A hypothesis is a statement not a question. Yet, our questions can help us to formulate a hypothesis. Think about your questions, your background information and what you think the reason for the changing water level. Think back to the map. Be sure it’s a sentence!

 Write out your hypothesis as to why the water level changes. Start with “the water level changes because….”

 

 

 

4 Laney College Biology 10 Lab Manual

Step Three: Designing an Experiment and Collecting Data A good question to ask here is, “What are some factors that might change the water level, that are out of our control?“ Variables are things that change over the course of the study and are not predetermined. The more variables you have, the more possible explanations you may have as a result. If we can limit the number of variables we have, it can help us come to a stronger conclusion. A lot of biological research happens in labs because it is easier to limit variables. Our study is outside, so there are a lot of variables, but we can control some of it. The date is predetermined and isn’t under our control, however, the day you go out and time of day you go to the lake is a variable that we can control.

 What are things that we can measure that might change while we are there? These are possible variables.

 

 What are the things that you can control?  Did you think about things like, the day of the week? Time of day? Presence or absence of rain? Great!

Now, that we know what type of variables we are dealing with, let’s talk about what type of data we would like to collect and how to record it.

Let’s look at what type of measurements we are going to make and what units we will use.

The Metric System In this class we use the metric system which is the system of measure used by the majority of the world and is actually an easier system than the one we have, which is called the Imperial system. The metric system is based on 10’s and the prefix tells you how many multiples of 10 of the base value you have. Those base values relate to the type of measure you need. If you are measuring the distance or height of something, you use meters. If you are measuring how much of a space you have (volume), you use liter. If you want to know the weight of something, you use grams. Here is a chart to help you understand the metric system. We gave you an example, now you can fill in the blanks as you go.

Prefix Ratio Distance (meter) Volume (liter) Weight (gram)

Micro (u) 1/1,000,000 1m = 1,000,000 um 1L= 1,000,000 uL 1g = 1,000,000 ug

Milli (m) 1/1000 1m = 1L= 1g =

Centi (c) 1/100 1m = 1L= 1g =

Kilo (k) 1000 1m = 1L= 1g =

 

 

 

5 Laney College Biology 10 Lab Manual

When we look at numbers, we can label their position like this: Let’s take this number 123.456

The 1 represents the hundreds place, the 2 is in the tens place, the 3 is in the ones place After the decimal, the 4 is in the tenths (1/10th) place, the 5 is in the hundredths (1/100th) place and the 6 is in the thousandths (1/1000th).

 So how many orders of 10 are there between the 4 and the 5? Notice that the difference between milli and centi is 10x. That means you can always move between milli and centi by moving the decimal one place. Which way would you move the decimal if you were moving from milli to centi?

Hint – look at the ruler, which one notates a larger number? Let’s practice collecting data using the metric system. Go to the lab materials table to get the equipment you need for each section. Make sure you put the equipment back in the same place and in the same condition you found it. Distance – you will need a plastic ruler and meter stick.

Using the plastic ruler, draw a line that is 5 inches long

 Now, measure that line using the other side of the ruler. How many mm is it? ____________

How many cm is it? ____________

So how many mm are there in 1 cm? ____________

Next, take out the meter stick. Notice that it has meters on one side and inches on the other. Let’s see how these different units compare, or, how many inches are in one meter? You can solve this problem two ways: 1) You can estimate by just looking at the ruler and follow it to the other side or 2) You can find it mathematically. You know how many centimeters there are in 5 inches and you know how many centimeters there are in 1 meter, so you can solve for meters using this type of method. First fill in how many cm there are in 5 inches and how many cm there are in 1 meter. _5 inches__ x _____ ___cm__ = cm 1 meter Now, fill in the blanks and do the math. Notice that the ‘cm’ units will cancel leaving your answer as inches per meter. Labeling units is extremely important in science.

 Name something you would use meters to measure in your Lake Merritt experiment?

 

 

6 Laney College Biology 10 Lab Manual

Weight – scale, salt, a piece of weigh paper. We will be using a triple beam scale in this class. Looking at the scale:

 What type of units do you see?

 Are all the numbers the same? The right end has a line on the beam and a line on the stationary part. When you weigh something you want those lines to, well, line up! Let’s try it out: People should eat somewhere below 23 grams of salt a day, yet the average American eats 34 grams. Let’s see what that looks like. Get some salt in a weigh boat, a piece of weigh paper and a scale. Make sure your scale reads ‘0’ to start out. Weigh the first value, now move the weights on the scale to represent the second. Keep adding salt until you find a balance. If you go too far, just take some off.

 What do you think this means about people’s salt intake?

 What types of health concerns are you familiar with that relate to high salt?

 Do you think there is salt in Lake Merritt? How does that affect your study?

Volume – do this at the sink, so you don’t need to bring it back to your table. To measure the amount of space something takes up (or volume), we use graduated cylinders and usually we are talking about liquids. There are three cylinders of varying sizes in the sink that should be kept all together. Looking at the tools in front of you, notice they are all different sizes.

 How much of a liquid can each of the cylinders hold? By the cylinders, there is a glass container that can hold a quart. Now, pour the water from the quart container into the graduated cylinder that can best estimate the amount of water.

 How many mL are there in a quart?

 

 

7 Laney College Biology 10 Lab Manual

 If there are 4 quarts in a gallon and if gas in Sweden is the equivalent to $1.50 dollars a liter, approximately how much would you pay for 1 gallon of gas in Sweden? In other words, how many liters are there in 1 gallon? (hint: write down the values you know already)

 

o Now, do you think our gas is expensive compared to other countries? Temperature – Using Celsius When we measure how hot or cold something is, we are finding its temperature. The fancy definition of temperature is the measurement of the kinetic energy in a sample of matter expressed in units. To the scientific world, and most of the rest of the world, those units are degrees Celsius. This scale is based on the temperature at which water becomes solid (turns into ice) and the temperature at which water becomes a gas (or boils). Using the reference material at the front, answer the following questions:

 

 What is the temperature at which water becomes solid using the Celsius (0C) scale? ______

 What is the temperature at which water becomes a gas using 0C? ______ Now, if you were going to create a scale, wouldn’t it make sense to use ‘0’ and ‘100’ for your extreme ends of the scale? Well, Daniel Fahrenheit didn’t think so, he preferred to use the temperature of brine (a mixture of salt, water and ice) for ‘0’ and his wife’s temperature for 100 (really 96). This is the basis of the scale we use. Using the reference material, answer the following questions:

 

 What is the temperature at which water becomes solid using the Fahrenheit (0F) scale? ______

 What is the temperature at which water becomes a gas using 0F? ______

 How many degrees Fahrenheit are there in 1 degree Celsius? (Write out what you know and see if you can figure it out?)

 

 

 

 

8 Laney College Biology 10 Lab Manual

Step Four: Gathering Data After looking at our map, we notice that Lake Merritt is connected to a water way behind campus. That water way connects to the bay. We would like to show that the water in Lake Merritt is connected to the Bay and the Pacific Ocean. In the data table below, we have provided tide information for Lake Merritt (LM) and the Golden Gate Bridge (GGB) for one week to see if they are similar. If they are, that helps us provide evidence for our hypothesis. Name of table Tide Height at Lake Merritt

TIDE/DATE 9/21/2019 9/22/2019 9/23/2019 9/24/2019 9/25/2019

LM Tide 1.52m 1.46m 1.34m 1.45m 1.55m

GGB Tide 1.55m 1.38m 1.25m 1.42m 1.61m

Step Fiver: Reporting Your Results Reporting Data: Data is a word that is actually the plural of datum, in here we say things like “These data suggest…” It is hard to remember, even for scientists, but we’ll try. Let’s look more closely at our data.

 What values are you graphing?

 Which one is dependent on the other one? Think of it this way:

 The water level was dependent on the date you were at the lake, but the date is not dependent upon the water level.

 That makes the date the independent variable (X axis) and the water level the dependent variable (Y axis).

 When you are presenting information about a graph to a group, make sure to explain the axes before you start talking about the graph.

Label the graph and the axes:

 Let’s start with the date. Putting a date that corresponds to each line is okay, be sure you space them out so you use the whole X-axis.

 Now, look at the tide height. What we want to do is see the range of heights from 0 to the highest tide level. Count the number of lines we have on the graph. Divide the highest tide height by the number of lines and that is the interval you want to use, but try not to use fractions.

Biology 10 Lab Assignment-Completing The Chemistry In Practice Lab

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Human Monkey Chimera

Human Monkey Chimera.

I will be attaching an article and another word file for questions to answer. please answer those questions with an expanded explanation. and this work is due tomorrow. thanks

  • Review: Chimeric contribution of human extended pluripotent stem cells to monkey embryos ex vivo by Tan et. Al. 2021

     

    1. Describe the basic process for making a chimera (graphical abstract). What are some additional changes the research could try? (limitations of the study).

    2. How long were the embryos monitored after chimera formation, which was at 6 days post fertilization (d.p.f.). What was the relative survival rate?

    3. Why are scientists doing this type of work / what is the purpose?

    4. Did the researchers follow proper guidelines, support your answer (go past the references to the additional material).

    5. In your opinion should this type of research be continued, why or why not.

     

     

    The following links discuss issues brought up by this research.

    https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-moral-status-of-human-monkey-chimeras

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01001-2

    https://www.livescience.com/human-monkey-chimeric-embryos.html

    Article

    Chimeric contribution of human extended pluripotent stem cells to monkey embryos ex vivo

    Graphical abstract

    Highlights

    d Generation of human-monkey chimeric embryos ex vivo with

    hEPSCs

    d hEPSCs differentiated into hypoblast and epiblast lineages

    d scRNA-seq analyses revealed developmental trajectories of

    human and monkey cells

    d The approach may allow for enhancing chimerism between

    evolutionarily distant species

    Tan et al., 2021, Cell 184, 2020–2032 April 15, 2021 ª 2021 Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.020

    Authors

    Tao Tan, Jun Wu, Chenyang Si, …,

    Weizhi Ji, Yuyu Niu,

    Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte

    Correspondence tant@lpbr.cn (T.T.), jun2.wu@utsouthwestern.edu (J.W.), wji@lpbr.cn (W.J.), niuyy@lpbr.cn (Y.N.), belmonte@salk.edu (J.C.I.B.)

    In brief

    Human cells, in the form of extended

    pluripotent stem cells, have the ability to

    contribute to both embryonic and extra-

    embryonic lineages in ex-vivo-cultured

    monkey embryos.

    ll

     

     

    ll

    Article

    Chimeric contribution of human extended pluripotent stem cells to monkey embryos ex vivo Tao Tan,1,4,* Jun Wu,2,4,5,* Chenyang Si,1,4 Shaoxing Dai,1,4 Youyue Zhang,1,4 Nianqin Sun,1 E Zhang,1 Honglian Shao,1

    Wei Si,1 Pengpeng Yang,1 Hong Wang,1 Zhenzhen Chen,1 Ran Zhu,1 Yu Kang,1 Reyna Hernandez-Benitez,2

    Llanos Martinez Martinez,3 Estrella Nuñez Delicado,3 W. Travis Berggren,2 May Schwarz,2 Zongyong Ai,1 Tianqing Li,1

    Concepcion Rodriguez Esteban,2 Weizhi Ji,1,* Yuyu Niu,1,* and Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte2,6,* 1State Key Laboratory of Primate Biomedical Research, Institute of Primate Translational Medicine, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, Yunnan 650500, China 2Gene Expression Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA 3Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia (UCAM), Campus de los Jerónimos, No 135 12, Guadalupe 30107, Spain 4These authors contributed equally 5Present address: Department of Molecular Biology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA 6Lead contact

    *Correspondence: tant@lpbr.cn (T.T.), jun2.wu@utsouthwestern.edu (J.W.), wji@lpbr.cn (W.J.), niuyy@lpbr.cn (Y.N.), belmonte@salk.edu (J. C.I.B.)

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.020

    SUMMARY

    Interspecies chimera formation with human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) represents a necessary alternative to evaluate hPSC pluripotency in vivo and might constitute a promising strategy for various regenerative medicine applications, including the generation of organs and tissues for transplantation. Studies using mouse and pig embryos suggest that hPSCs do not robustly contribute to chimera formation in species evolutionarily distant to humans. We studied the chimeric competency of human extended pluripotent stem cells (hEPSCs) in cynomolgus monkey (Macaca fascicularis) embryos cultured ex vivo. We demonstrate that hEPSCs survived, proliferated, and generated several peri- and early post-implantation cell lineages in- side monkey embryos. We also uncovered signaling events underlying interspecific crosstalk that may help shape the unique developmental trajectories of human and monkey cells within chimeric embryos. These re- sults may help to better understand early human development and primate evolution and develop strategies to improve human chimerism in evolutionarily distant species.

    INTRODUCTION

    Pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) are capable of indefinite self-

    renewal in culture and generating all adult cell types (De Los An-

    geles et al., 2015; Hackett and Surani, 2014; Rossant and Tam,

    2017; Wu and Izpisua Belmonte, 2016). PSCs have recently been

    harnessed for interspecies organogenesis via blastocyst

    complementation, a technique that holds potential to provide

    large quantities of in-vivo-generated human cells, tissues, and

    organs for regenerative medicine applications, including organ

    transplantation (Suchy and Nakauchi, 2018; Wu et al., 2016).

    One of the requirements for successful interspecies blastocyst

    complementation with human PSCs (hPSCs) is their ability to

    contribute to chimera formation. The chimeric competency of

    hPSCs has been systematically tested in several animal species

    (Wu et al., 2016), but despite sustained efforts from different lab-

    oratories, the general consensus is that hPSCs do not consis-

    tently and robustly contribute to chimera formation when the

    host animal has a high evolutionary distance from humans

    (e.g., mice and pigs; Wu et al., 2016, 2017). This is the case

    2020 Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021 ª 2021 Elsevier Inc.

    even when human cell apoptosis is inhibited (Das et al., 2020;

    Huang et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018). Xenogeneic barriers be-

    tween hPSCs and evolutionarily distant host animal species

    have been suggested to account for limited chimerism (Wu

    et al., 2016, 2017), though the use of hPSCs for chimera studies

    in host species evolutionarily close to humans remains unex-

    plored to date.

    Cultured PSCs reflect the continuum of pluripotency that is

    seen in vivo, and different cell culture formulations result in

    distinct pluripotency states in vitro (Morgani et al., 2017; Smith,

    2017; Weinberger et al., 2016). hPSCs in different pluripotency

    states exhibit distinct transcriptional, epigenetic, and metabolic

    features. They also differ in their chimeric potential when intro-

    duced into animal embryos (De Los Angeles, 2019; Harvey

    et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2018). Recently, we and others identi-

    fied human extended PSCs (hEPSCs) that demonstrated

    improved chimeric capability in mouse conceptuses (Gao

    et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2017b). To date, however, the chimeric

    competency of hEPSCs has not been determined in other

    species.

     

     

    ll Article

    Leveraging a recently developed culture system that enables

    cynomolgus monkey (monkey for short) embryos to develop

    up to 20 days ex vivo (Ma et al., 2019; Niu et al., 2019), we per-

    formed microinjection of hEPSCs into monkey blastocysts and

    examined their contribution to cultured monkey embryos at

    different time points (Figure 1A). We found that hEPSCs could

    integrate into the inner cell masses (ICMs) of late monkey blasto-

    cysts and contributed to both embryonic and extra-embryonic

    lineages in peri- and early post-implantation stages during pro-

    longed embryo culture. We also determined the differentiation

    trajectory of hEPSCs within cultured monkey embryos by sin-

    gle-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) analysis.

    RESULTS

    Generation of human-monkey chimeric blastocysts in vitro

    To determine the chimera competency of hPSCs in a closely

    related non-human primate species, we used a well-character-

    ized hEPSC line generated by cellular reprogramming, iPS1-

    EPSCs, which demonstrated improved chimerism in embryonic

    day 10.5 (E10.5) mouse conceptuses over other reported hPSCs

    (Yang et al., 2017b). Consistent with the previous report, iPS1-

    EPSCs exhibited a dome-shaped colony morphology and ex-

    pressed the core pluripotency transcription factors OCT4,

    NANOG, and SOX2 (Figure S1A). To generate human-monkey

    chimeric embryos, early blastocysts from cynomolgus monkeys

    (6 days post-fertilization [d.p.f.6]) were injected with 25 iPS1-

    EPSCs labeled with tdTomato (TD). Injected embryos were first

    cultured to the late blastocyst stage (d.p.f.7) for analysis. The

    proliferation of hEPSCs within monkey blastocysts was evident

    (Video S1). In total, TD+ iPS1-EPSCs were detected in all

    d.p.f.7 monkey blastocysts (100%, n = 132) (Figure S1B).

    Chimeric contribution of hEPSCs to peri- and post- implantation monkey embryos We next took advantage of a recently established prolonged em-

    bryo culture system that supports ex vivo primate (human and

    monkey) embryogenesis to the gastrulation stage (Deglincerti

    et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2019; Niu et al., 2019; Shahbazi et al.,

    2016; Xiang et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2019). In this embryo culture

    system, the zona pellucida is removed and the denuded blasto-

    cysts are allowed to attach to the culture dish for further develop-

    ment. We used this system to trace the fate of hEPSCs in

    monkey embryos at peri- and post-implantation stages. Similar

    to noninjected controls (92.31%, n = 104) (Niu et al., 2019),

    most embryos injected with hEPSCs attached at approximately

    d.p.f.10 (92.79%, n = 111). After attachment, the injected em-

    bryos continued to grow, and an embryonic disc became visible

    at approximately d.p.f.11 as seen with controls (Figure 1B). TD+

    human cells were found in the embryonic disc of more than half

    of the injected embryos at d.p.f. 9, but this ratio progressively

    declined at approximately one-third by d.p.f.13 (Figure 1C). To

    determine whether introduced hEPSCs may affect embryo

    development, we evaluated and compared the developmental

    status of injected and control embryos (Niu et al., 2019). We

    found that the developmental ratios of injected embryos were

    slightly lower than that of controls (Figure 1D). Furthermore,

    similar to controls, the developmental ratios of injected embryos

    dropped sharply at approximately d.p.f.15, which may reflect the

    limitation of the 2D attachment embryo culture system

    (Figure 1D).

    To study the developmental potential of hEPSCs in monkey

    embryos, we performed immunofluorescence (IF) studies using

    antibodies specific for several embryonic and extra-embryonic

    lineages. Analyses were performed between d.p.f.9 and

    d.p.f.19. At the peri-implantation stage (d.p.f.9), on average,

    10.2 ± 7.2 (n = 9) iPS1-EPSCs were found incorporated into

    the ICM (the number of TD+OCT4+ cells found within or close

    to NANOG+ or OCT4+ monkey cells) (Figure 2A). Although these

    cells expressed OCT4, only a few of them expressed NANOG

    (Figure S1C). Supporting their epiblast (EPI)-like identity, we

    did not observe GATA6 (a hypoblast [HYP] marker) expression

    in these cells (Figure S1C). In addition, TD+GATA4+ HYP-like

    cells were also detected (Figure 2B). In contrast to the results re-

    ported in mice (Yang et al., 2017b), only a few iPS1-EPSCs were

    detected in the trophectoderm (TE) layer of monkey blastocysts

    and expressed TE (TE or trophoblast) marker genes (e.g.,

    TFAP2C and CK7) (Figure 2C).

    At d.p.f.11, TD+OCT4+cells were also detected in the EPI layer

    of monkey embryos, and these cells rarely expressed T+ (also

    known as Brachyury), a marker of gastrulation. By contrast, T+

    monkey cells were detected at the dorsal amnion of the embryos

    (Figure 2D). In addition, TD+ human cells expressing a HYP

    marker, platelet-derived growth factor receptor-alpha

    (PDGFRa), were found intermingled within monkey HYP cells

    (Figure 2E). OCT4+ human cells expressing COL6A1, a marker

    of extra-embryonic mesenchyme cells (EXMCs), were found

    outside of the EPI layer, suggesting ongoing differentiation of

    hEPSCs toward EXMCs (Figure S1D). At d.p.f.13, hEPSCs

    were detected beneath the EPI layer and expressed an endo-

    derm marker, SOX17, suggesting that they have initiated gastru-

    lation (Figure 2F). Interestingly, we found that from d.p.f.13

    onward human cells tended to group together and segregate

    from the monkey EPI layer. These human cells appeared to un-

    dergo differentiation into gastrulating cells as evidenced by the

    gained expression of OTX2 (Martyn et al., 2018; Vincent et al.,

    2003) while maintaining OCT4 expression (Figure S1E). Overall,

    we found that hEPSCs exhibited reasonable contribution to the

    EPI (with the highest contribution of 7.08% observed at

    d.p.f.15), relatively lower contribution to the HYP (with the high-

    est contribution of 4.96% observed at d.p.f.19), and limited

    contribution to the TE in peri- and post-implantation monkey em-

    bryos (Figure 2G).

    Transcriptional landscape of human-monkey chimeric embryos To further delineate the developmental trajectory of human-

    monkey chimeric embryos, scRNA-seq analysis was carried

    out to profile the transcriptomes of human and monkey cells at

    different developmental stages. Following embryo dissociation,

    single human (TD+) and monkey (TD�) cells were manually collected using fluorescence microscopy and subjected to

    scRNA-seq. In total, we sequenced 227 human and 302 monkey

    cells isolated from chimeric embryos at different time points dur-

    ing ex vivo culture (d.p.f.9–d.p.f.17; Table S2). TD expression and

    Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021 2021

     

     

    Figure 1. Generation and developmental capability of human-monkey ex-vivo chimeras

    (A) Schematic of the generation and analyses of chimeric embryos derived from blastocyst injection of hEPSCs (created with BioRender.com). hEPSCs, human

    extended pluripotent stem cells; EPI, epiblast; HYP, hypoblast; TE, trophectoderm; EXMC, extra-embryonic mesenchyme cell; GAS, gastrulating cell; IF,

    immunofluorescence.

    (B) Representative bright-field images of hEPSC-injected monkey embryos cultured in vitro until d.p.f.19 (n = 111 embryos for d.p.f.9; n = 91 embryos for d.p.f.11;

    n = 60 embryos for d.p.f.13; n = 38 embryos for d.p.f.15; n = 12 embryos for d.p.f.17 and n = 3 embryos for d.p.f.19). Scale bar, 100 mm. Yellow dotted lines indicate

    ICM (d.p.f.9) or embryonic disc (d.p.f.11 to d.p.f.19).

    (C) Histogram showing the percentages of host monkey embryos containing human cells within ICM or embryonic disc (yellow dotted lines in B).

    (D) Dynamics of developmental ratios of chimeric (n = 126, d.p.f.8) and non-chimeric monkey embryos (n = 104, data from Niu et al., 2019). Embryos without clear

    embryonic disc structure and/or appear dead were excluded from the analysis.

    See also Figure S1 and Video S1.

    ll

    2022 Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021

    Article

     

     

    Figure 2. hEPSCs contribute to chimera

    formation in peri- and post-implantation

    monkey embryos

    (A) Representative IF images showing integration

    of TD-positive hEPSCs into ICM of host monkey

    embryos at d.p.f.9 (n = 7). The embryos were

    stained for OCT4 (green) and NANOG (gray). Scale

    bar, 250 mm. Bottom, enlargements of the insert

    (white dotted line) in the top panel. Arrows indicate

    TD-positive hEPSCs expressing OCT4 and

    NANOG. Yellow dotted line indicates ICM. Scale

    bar, 50 mm.

    (B) Representative IF images showing hEPSCs

    differentiated into HYP-like cells within host

    monkey embryos at d.p.f.9. The embryos were

    stained for GATA4 (gray) and NANOG (green).

    Scale bar, 250 mm. Bottom, enlargements of the

    insert (white dotted line) in the top panel. Arrow

    indicates a TD-positive hEPSC expressing

    GATA4. Yellow dotted line indicates ICM. Scale

    bar, 100 mm.

    (C) Representative IF images showing integration

    of TD-positive hEPSCs into TE of host monkey

    embryos at d.p.f.9 (n = 3). The embryos were

    stained for TFAP2C (gray) and CK7 (green). Scale

    bar, 100 mm. Bottom, enlargements of the insert

    (white dotted line) in the top panel. Arrow indicates

    a TD-positive hEPSC expressing TFAP2C and

    CK7. Scale bar, 50 mm.

    (D) Representative IF images showing incorporation

    of hEPSCs into EPI of host monkey embryo at

    d.p.f.11 (n = 3). The embryos were stained for T

    (gray) and OCT4 (green). Scale bar, 250 mm. Bot-

    tom: enlargements of inserts (white dotted line) in

    the top panel. Notably, hEPSCs rarely express T

    (arrow), a marker of mesoderm, whereas the

    expression of T is detected in monkey cells

    (arrowhead). Yellow dotted line indicates EPI. Scale

    bar, 25 mm.

    (E) Expression of HYP marker, PDGFRa, in hEPSCs

    at d.p.f.11 (n = 2). The embryos were stained for

    PDGFRa (green). Scale bar, 50 mm. Bottom: en-

    largements of the insert (white dotted line) in the top

    panel. Arrow indicates a tdTomato-positive hEPSC

    expressing PDGFRa. Yellow dotted line indicates

    EPI. Scale bar, 10 mm.

    (F) IF images of sections of monkey embryos at

    d.p.f.13 (n = 5) staining for SOX17 (green).

    Arrows indicate tdTomato-positive hEPSCs expressing SOX17. Scale bar, 50 mm. Yellow dotted line indicates EPI.

    (G) Levels of chimerism of hEPSCs within EPI, HYP, and TE. EPI cells expressed only OCT4, and HYP cells expressed GATA6 and/or GATA4, whereas TE expressed

    CK7 (a total of 25 embryos and 17,938 cells were analyzed). EPI, epiblast; HYP, hypoblast; TE, trophectoderm; TD, tdTomato; DAPI, 40,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole. See also Figure S1.

    ll Article

    the ratio of reads mapped to the human or cynomolgus monkey

    genomes were used to further confirm each cell’s species of

    origin (Figures S2A and S2B). After stringent filtering, 200 human

    and 272 monkey cells were used for further analyses (Table S2).

    On average, 9,798 genes (transcripts per million [TPM] > 0) and

    27,936,953 reads were detected per cell. There was no statistical

    difference in the number of genes and reads detected between

    human and monkey cells (Figure S2C). For comparison, we

    also included published scRNA-seq datasets containing cells

    from monkey and human embryos in the analyses (Nakamura

    et al., 2016; Niu et al., 2019; Xiang et al., 2020; Zhou et al.,

    2019). To avoid batch-specific systematic variations of scRNA-

    seq caused by integration of different datasets, we used an ‘‘an-

    chors’’ method that is recommended for batch-effect removal

    (Stuart et al., 2019) (Figure S2C).

    We first performed t-distributed stochastic neighbor embed-

    ding (t-SNE) analysis on the scRNA-seq datasets. Based on

    the expression of known lineage markers, we identified four ma-

    jor cell clusters that were present in all samples (both chimeric

    and control embryos): EPI, HYP, TE, and EXMC (Figures 3A,

    3B, and S2D). These cells also expressed lineage-specific

    markers that showed conservation between humans and

    Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021 2023

     

     

    A

    C

    D

    B Figure 3. Transcriptional landscape of hu- man-monkey chimeric embryos

    (A) t-SNE plot of cells from chimeric and control

    non-chimeric embryos. Cells were identified as

    EPI, HYP, TE, and EXMC. Cells were colored by

    different species origins and datasets.

    (B) Expression of lineage-specific marker genes of

    EPI, HYP, and TE exhibited on t-SNE plots. A

    gradient of gray, yellow, and red indicates low to

    high expression.

    (C) The phylogenetic tree shows the cluster of EPI,

    HYP, and TE cells from chimeric embryos at

    different stages (d.p.f.9, 11, 13, 15, and 17). Cells

    are highlighted by species origins (human or

    monkey), different stages (d.p.f.9, 11, 13, 15, and

    17), and different cell types (EPI, HYP, and TE).

    (D) Bar plot showing the distribution of cells from

    different origins in the four lineages (EPI, EXMC,

    HYP, and TE). EPI, epiblast; HYP, hypoblast; TE,

    trophectoderm; EXMC, extra-embryonic mesen-

    chyme cell.

    See also Figure S2 and Table S2.

    ll Article

    monkeys identified in a previous study (Figure S2E) (Zhou et al.,

    2019). The presence of these cell types in chimeric embryos sug-

    gests that the development of host embryos was by and large

    unaffected by the injected hEPSCs (Ma et al., 2019; Niu et al.,

    2019), which is consistent with the morphological analysis

    (Figures 1B and 1D). Interestingly, phylogenetic tree analysis

    (based on gene expression levels) revealed that while most mon-

    key cells within chimeric embryos (chimeric monkey cells for

    short) segregated into distinct cell-type-specific clusters (EPI,

    HYP, and TE), chimeric human HYP- and TE-like cells clustered

    with EPI-like cells (Figure 3C). Thus, it seems that the chimeric

    monkey cells exhibited a more faithful lineage segregation than

    the introduced hEPSCs. In agreement with IF results, very few

    human TE-like cells were identified in the scRNA-seq data (Fig-

    ures 3A and 3D) and were therefore excluded from subsequent

    analyses. Together, these results demonstrate that hEPSCs

    can differentiate into several peri- and early post-implantation

    cell types after being introduced into monkey early blastocysts

    followed by ex vivo embryo culture.

    Transcriptome dynamics of hEPSCs during human- monkey chimera development We next investigated the transcriptional kinetics of chimeric hu-

    man and monkey cells. We first constructed a force-directed K-

    nearest neighbor graph (SPRING) (Weinreb et al., 2018) based on

    transcriptomic properties of all cells (see STAR Methods). All

    cells bifurcated into three branches: EPI, HYP, and TE (Fig-

    ure 4A). The correlations of gene expression patterns between

    chimeric and control (human and monkey) embryos were deter-

    2024 Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021

    mined (Figure 4B). Similar correlation co-

    efficients were obtained when chimeric

    human cells were compared to control

    human (0.460) or monkey (0.459) cells

    (Figure 4B, right panels). Intriguingly,

    when compared to control embryos,

    chimeric monkey cells exhibited higher

    correlation coefficients than chimeric human cells (Figure 4B,

    left panels). We next generated lineage-specific correlation

    matrices. We found that chimeric human EPI-like cells were

    similar to EPI cells in human embryos, whereas chimeric human

    HYP- and EXMC-like cells shared the highest correlation coeffi-

    cients with chimeric monkey HYP cells and EXMCs, respectively

    (Figure 4C). Of note, we also found that chimeric monkey EPI

    cells and EXMCs more resembled chimeric than control human

    cells. Interestingly, chimeric human EPI-like cells were found to

    gradually gravitate toward the chimeric monkey EPI cells, with

    R2 values increasing from 0.363 (pre-implantation EPI [Pre_EPI])

    to 0.464 (post-implantation late EPI [PostL_EPI]) and then to

    0.693 (gastrulating [Gast] cells) (Figure 4C). Taken together,

    these results demonstrate that the monkey embryonic microen-

    vironment exerts influence on the transcriptional states of human

    cells and vice versa.

    As monkey cells exhibited transcriptomic changes in the pres-

    ence of human cells, we next sought to delineate the develop-

    mental dynamics of monkey cells within chimeric embryos. We

    first identified differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between

    chimeric and control monkey embryos. Comparisons of EPI

    cells, HYP cells, and EXMCs revealed that 424, 7, and 241 genes

    were downregulated, whereas 5, 2, and 13 genes were upregu-

    lated, respectively, in cells from chimeric compared to control

    embryos, although the expression levels of lineage marker genes

    remained comparable (Figures 4D and S3A). Gene Ontology

    (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG)

    enrichment analyses identified a number of signaling pathways

    that were up- and downregulated in chimeric monkey EPI cells,

     

     

    A

    C

    D

    F G

    E

    B

    (legend on next page)

    ll

    Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021 2025

    Article

     

     

    ll Article

    HYP cells, and EXMCs. For example, the Hippo and transforming

    growth factor b (TGF-b) signaling pathways were downregulated

    in chimeric monkey EPI cells and EXMCs (Figure 4E),

    respectively.

    Having shown that the transcriptomic profiles of monkey EPI

    cells were altered in chimeric embryos, we next investigated

    whether the monkey EPI embryonic niche was also affected by

    human cells. To this end, CellPhoneDB (v2.0.1) (Vento-Tormo

    et al., 2018) was applied to identify potential cellular interactions

    between EPI and other lineages (HYP and EXMC) in both

    chimeric and control embryos (see STAR Methods). We sought

    to identify interactions that were specific to chimeric or control

    embryos. We found more ligand-receptor interactions in

    chimeric embryos when compared to control embryos (e.g.,

    117 [chimeric] versus 10 [control] specific ligand-receptor inter-

    actions were detected in monkey EPI cells) (Figures 4F and S3B;

    Table S3). KEGG analysis was performed to reveal specific

    signaling pathways that were enriched within chimeric and

    control embryos. We found several signaling pathways (e.g.,

    phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase [PI3K]-Akt and mitogen-activated

    protein kinase [MAPK] signaling pathways) that were strength-

    ened in chimeric embryos and new signaling pathways (e.g.,

    WNT signaling pathway) that were specifically enriched in

    chimeric embryos (Figure 4G). Using the same method, we

    also determined human and monkey cell-cell interactions within

    chimeric embryos and identified distinct ligand-receptor interac-

    tions in EPI cells, such as FGF5-FGFR4, NOTCH4-JAG2,

    WNT2B-FZD4, WISP3-SORL1, and PLXNB2-PTN (Figures S3C

    and S3D; Table S3). Taken together, our results suggest that

    cell-cell interactions are reinforced within the chimeric embryos

    and potentially lead to activation of additional signaling

    pathways.

    Chimeric human EPI-like cells display a distinct developmental trajectory EPI development is characterized by pluripotency transitions that

    may exhibit different dynamics between species. As proper EPI

    specification and differentiation are critical for chimera formation

    and development, we examined the lineage allocation of human

    EPI-like cells within the chimeric embryos and compared it with

    the datasets of in-vitro-cultured human and monkey embryos

    Figure 4. Developmental trajectory of human-monkey chimeric embry

    (A) The differentiation trajectory of chimeric cells and control non-chimeric cells

    colored by cell lineages.

    (B) Overall similarity under the four comparisons (chimera-monkey versus control

    versus control non-chimeric human [‘‘Chimera-Human vs. Control-Human’’], c

    Control-Monkey’’], and chimera-human versus control non-chimeric monkey [‘‘C

    (C) Heatmap of the correlation coefficients among different cell origins under cor

    (D) Histogram showing the numbers of DEGs for different lineages (EPI, HYP, and

    embryos. The red and blue colors represent up- and down-regulated genes, res

    (E) GO and KEGG enrichment analyses of the DEGs in (D). Red and blue represen

    respectively.

    (F) The Venn diagrams showing the overlap of the ligand-receptor interactions bet

    non-chimeric (Control-Monkey) monkey cells.

    (G) Comparison of KEGG pathways enriched by the specific interactions betwee

    cells in (F). EPI, epiblast; EXMC, extra-embryonic mesenchyme cell; HYP, hypobla

    gastrulating cell; DEG, differentially expressed gene.

    See also Figure S3 and Table S3.

    2026 Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021

    (Nakamura et al., 2016; Niu et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2019). Human

    EPI-like cells were identified at pre-implantation, post-implanta-

    tion, and gastrulating stages, and at each stage, they expressed

    distinct markers (Figures 5A and S4A–S4C). A Sankey diagram

    also showed the same developmental dynamics of human EPI-

    like cells (Figure S4D). We next determined the relationship be-

    tween hEPSCs (Yang et al., 2017b), chimeric human EPI-like

    cells, EPI cells from control human and monkey embryos (Niu

    et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2019), and human and monkey PSCs

    (primed and naive) (Chan et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2015; Gafni

    et al., 2013; Theunissen et al., 2014). We observed that hEPSCs

    were more similar to early post-implantation EPI (PostE_EPI)

    and PostL_EPI cells from human and monkey embryos, respec-

    tively, as well as human and monkey naive PSCs. Chimeric hu-

    man PostL_EPI-like cells showed higher correlation coefficients

    to primed PSCs than naive PSCs (Figure S4E). To further investi-

    gate the transcriptional kinetics of hEPSCs (Yang et al., 2017b),

    chimeric humanEPI-like cells, andhost monkeyEPI cells, we per-

    formed RNA velocity (La Manno et al., 2018) and Slingshot ana-

    lyses (Street et al., 2018) (Figure 5B). We observed two distinct

    patterns of RNA velocity vectors; chimeric human PostL_EPI-

    like cells bore long vectors, and gastrulating-like cells bore short

    vectors. In contrast, host monkey PostL_EPI cells lacked long

    vectors, and gastrulating cells bore long vectors (Figure 5B, left

    two panels). These results imply that development is delayed

    for chimeric human EPI-like cells. Slingshot analysis revealed

    that after injection into monkey blastocysts, hEPSCs followed

    the EPSC to PostL_EPI to gastrulation developmental trajectory

    (Figure 5B, right panel). To further delineate the developmental

    trajectory of chimeric human EPI-like cells, we mapped all EPI-

    related human and monkey reads to a consensus genome and

    aligned EPI development trajectories between species using a

    previously reported method (Kanton et al., 2019). In agreement

    with the RNA velocity analysis, we found that chimeric human

    EPI-like cells differentiated more slowly than EPI cells from host

    monkey, control monkey, and human embryos (Figure 5C). These

    results suggest that the specification and/or differentiation of

    hEPSCs toward the EPI lineages was less efficient than embry-

    onic cells.

    As mentioned above, global transcriptional profiles of chimeric

    human EPI-like cells more resembled monkey EPI cells within the

    os

    . The differentiation trajectory was reconstructed using SPRING. Cells were

    non-chimeric human [‘‘Chimera-Monkey vs. Control-Human’’], chimera-human

    himera-monkey versus control non-chimeric monkey [‘‘Chimera-Monkey vs.

    himera-Human vs. Control-Monkey’’]). Cells are colored by cell origins.

    responding lineages (EPI, EXMC, HYP, Pre_EPI, PostL_EPI, and Gast).

    EXMC) in the host monkey cells compared to cells from control non-chimeric

    pectively.

    t enrichment p values (�log10 transformed) for up- and downregulated DEGs,

    ween EPI-EPI, EPI-HYP, and EPI-EXMC in host (Chimera-Monkey) and control

    n host (Chimera-Monkey) and control non-chimeric (Control-Monkey) monkey

    st; Pre_EPI, pre-implantation EPI; PostL_EPI, post-implantation late EPI; Gast,

     

     

    A

    C

    D

    F

    E

    B

    Figure 5. Developmental trajectory of chimeric human EPI-like cells within monkey embryos

    (A) t-SNE plot of EPI cells at different sublineages. Cells are colored by cell origins and designated as ICM, Pre_EPI, PostE_EPI, PostL_EPI, and Gast. Cells of

    ‘‘Control-Human 1’’ derive from dataset ‘‘Human-1’’ (Zhou et al., 2019). Cells of ‘‘Control-Monkey 1’’ derive from dataset ‘‘Monkey-1’’ (Niu et al., 2019). Cells of

    ‘‘Control-Monkey 2’’ derive from dataset ‘‘Monkey-2’’ (Nakamura et al., 2016). Lower right: single cells are colored according to embryonic stages.

    (B) RNA velocity analysis of chimeric human (chimera-human) and host monkey (chimera-monkey) cells, respectively (left two panels). The amplitude and di-

    rection of the vector reflects a transcriptional trajectory. Slingshot analysis of chimeric human EPI-like cells and hEPSCs (third panel). The curves and arrows

    indicate the potential development trajectory. Cells are colored by cell lineages.

    (C) Pseudotime alignment between control and chimeric cells. Left and right panels show the pseudotime alignment of chimeric cells with control human and host

    monkey cells, respectively.

    (legend continued on next page)

Human Monkey Chimera

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Masters In Biomed

Masters In Biomed. >Bovine-L liver form (87)

MSQAEFDKAAEEVKHLKTKPADEEMLFIYSHYKQATVGDINTERPGMLDFKGKAKWDAWNELKGTSKEDAMKAYIDKVEELKKKYGI

>Chick-L liver form (86)

mseaafqkaaeevkelksqptdqemldvyshykqatvgdvntdrpgmldfkgkakwdawnalkgmskedamkayvakveelkgkygi

>Dog-L Liver form (86)

MSQAEFDKAAEDVKHLKTKPADDEMLYIYSHYKQATVGDINTERPGLLDLRGKAKWDAWNQLKGTSKEDAMKAYVNKVEDLKKKYGI

>Chimpanzee-L liver form (87)

MSQAEFEKAAEEVRHLKTKPSDEEMLFIYGHYKQATVGDINTERPGMLDFTGKAKWDAWNELKGTSKEDAMK

AYINKVEELKKKYGI

>Human-L liver form (87)

MSQAEFEKAAEEVRHLKTKPSDEEMLFIYGHYKQATVGDINTERPGMLDFTGKAKWDAWNELKGTSKEDAMKAYINKVEELKKKYGI

>Duck-L Liver form (86)

MAEAAFQKAAEEVKQLKSQPSDQEMLDVYSHYKQATVGDVNTDRPGMLDFKGKAKWDAWNALKGMSKEDAMKAYVAKVEELKGKYGI

>Bovine-B brain form_(88)

MSLQADFDKAAKDVRKLKTRPDDEELKELYGLYKQSVIGDIDIECPALLDLKGKAKWEAWNLQKGLSKEDAMNAYISKAKELIEKYGI

>Chick-B brain form -ACBP) (88)

MALQADFDGAAKDVKKLKTRPTDEELKELYGFYKQATVGDINIECPGVLDVKGKAKWEAW

NLKRGISKEDAMNAYISKAKAMIEKYGI

>Human-B brain form B-ACBP) (88)

MALQADFDRAAEDVRKLKARPDDGELKELYGLYKQAIVGDINIACPGMLDLKGKAKWEAWNLKKGLSTED

ATSAYISKAKELIEKYGI

>Duck-B brain form B-ACBP) (103)

mfqahllrgtltlsfflhqadfdeaaeevkklktrptdeelkelygfykqatvgdiniecpgmldlkgka

kweawnlkkgiskedamnayiskaktmvekygi

>Bovine-T testis form -ACBP)(86)

mcqvefemacaaikqlkgpvsdqekllvysyykqatqgdcnipappatdlkakakweawnenkgmskmdamriyiakveelkkneag

>Dog-T testis form (74) (T-ACBP)

MCQVEFEMACAAIKQLKGPVSDQEKLLVYSFYKQATQGDCNIPAPPATDVKAKAKWEAWNQNKGMSKMDAHEDL

>C.elegans (85)

mtlsfddaaatvktlktspsndellklyalfkqgtvgdnttdkpgmfdlkgkakwsawdekkglakddaqkayvalveeliakyga

>Barley (93)

MGLKEEFEEYAEKAKTLPDTTTNESKLCLYSLYKQATVGPVNTDRPGLFDLAGKAKWDAW

KSVEAKSKEEAMADYITKVKQLLEEAAAASASS

>Fruitfly1 (86)

MVSEQFNAAAEKVKSLTKRPSDDEFLQLYALFKQASVGDNDTAKPGLLDLKGKAKWEAWNKQKGKSSEAAQQEYITFVEGLVAKYA

>S.cerevisiae (86)

mvsqlfeekakavnelptkpstdellelyalykqatvgdndkekpgifnmkdrykweawenlkgksqedaekeyialvdqliakyss

>A.thaliana (92)

mglkeefeehaekvntltelpsnedllilyglykqakfgpvdtsrpgmfsmkerakwdawkavegksseeamndyitkvkqllevaas

Pabio 536 Lab session and Homework Week 8 Multiple Alignment

1. Perform a multiple alignment using the ACBP liver forms and the ACBP brain forms from this week’s sequence file and show the alignment (ALN file) you obtained (10 points).

2. Compare the pattern of identical residues conserved within the liver forms to those conserved within the brain forms. Are there brain or liver specific residues (ie residues conserved in liver but not in brain or vice versa)? Provide a couple of examples (ie brain: A26, liver: W32)(10 points).

3. A) Determine a “pattern” of liver-specific amino acid residues, ie those amino acids conserved in all liver forms but not in the brain forms. Provide your pattern. (10 points) B) Do a PHI-BLAST search using the human ACBP Liver form in the query and your Liver-specific pattern – limit your output to salmonids. Did you detect a putative liver ACBP form in the salmonid “ atlantic salmon salmo” ? provide the BLAST hit. If you obtain no putative salmon ACBP hits try altering your pattern slightly and redo the PHI-BLAST. If all else fails, do a normal BLAST search with no pattern and exam the hits to see if you can detect a putative liver ACBP form in the salmonid “atlantic salmon salmo”? Provide the BLAST hit. In this last case, how did the salmo sequence differ from your pattern (10 points) C) Do a multiple alignment of all of the liver forms in question 2 plus your putative salmon liver ACBP form – provide the alignment (10 points). D) Discuss the alignment with regard to other liver-specific residues that you did not include in your PHI-BLAST pattern, ie are those conserved as well? Would you consider this putative atlantic salmon ACBP to be a liver form? Discuss (10 points).

4. A) Determine a “pattern” of amino acid residues that are conserved in the ACBP brain forms but not in the liver forms. Provide the pattern (10 points) B) Do a PHI-BLAST search using the human ACBP Brain form in the query and

your Brain-specific pattern – limit your output to salmonids. Did you detect a putative brain ACBP form in the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)? If you obtain no putative salmon ACBP hits try altering your pattern slightly and redo the PHI-BLAST. If you still get no putative salmon ACBP hit try doing a protein BLAST without the pattern and look at the hits by eye to determine whether there is a brain form in Salmo salar (hint- you should detect one) (10 points)

C) Do a multiple alignment of all of the brain forms in question 2 plus your putative salmon brain ACBP form – provide the alignment. (10 points)

D) Discuss the alignment with regard to the brain-specific residues? Would you consider this salmon ACBP to be a brain form? Discuss in relationship to your PHI-BLAST pattern and other “brain form”specific characteristics. (10 points)

5. EXTRA CREDIT: Do an alignment of all of the liver and brain form ACBP sequences including the salmon sequences. Identify the identical residues

 

 

conserved within all the sequences and discuss with regard to conservation of the previously characterized “ACBP” motifs (10 points). Can you make any conclusion regarding how the brain and the liver forms differ from each other – relying upon what you know of the structure of ACBP? (no right answer here – something to think about). (10 points)

Masters In Biomed

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"