Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In order to determine the effectiveness of DNA fingerprinting as a tool for confirmation of clonal nature and identity, we applied a DNA fingerprinting method to three genetically different groups of ayu Plecoglossus altivelis: clonal diploid, mitotic gynogenetic diploid (mitotic-G2N) and normal diploid. Genomic DNA extracted from blood was digested by Pst I restriction endonuclease and was hybridized with repetitive sequence in bacteriophage M13 DNA labelled with [α-32P] isotope. DNA fingerprints of P. altivelis were detected over the whole effective fraction range from 0.5-25 Kilobase pairs, and more than 42 fragment patterns were detected. The DNA fingerprints of clonal fish consisted of at least 21 distinguishable bands which showed identical patterns within a clone. Mitotic-G2N consisted of 12-18 bands, and an individual fingerprint of this group hardly shared the bands of the other individuals. A trend of markedly low levels of band sharing in the DNA fingerprint among individuals of mitotic-G2N fish would be useful as a powerful genetic marker for their respective clonal lines. In N-CONT, 9 of the 18-24 distinguishable bands were shared. These results suggest the usefulness of DNA fingerprinting in fisheries genetics as a marker for the assessment of inbreeding rates, and also for the identification of individuals and families.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Han et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: