Genetics

In this project, my group and I (Amanda Postel, Liv Hatch, and Gracie O'Hara) were farmers and we had to create the best food possible for the private food supply company we were hired by. Using our knowledge of genetics and inheritance we had to create a crop that would be most beneficial for this company. In order to do this, we could not use GMO's and had to persuade the food supply company to use our food instead of neighboring farmers' food. There were nine parent genotypes to choose from to have two of the three traits we found most important passed on to their children. We had to make three generations of crops so that our final crop had the best possibility of being the best "super crop." To back our choices, we created punnet squares. The genotypes were drought resistant that had a recessive allele (R,r), pest resistant that has a dominant allele (A,a) and frost resistant which was also a recessive allele (F,f).

We chose to make our crop consist of being drought resistant and pest resistant because we were only allowed to choose two phenotypes and we found these most important. In California, drought is a big problem so we knew we wanted to focus on this. In most parts of California it does not get cold enough to snow so we chose pest resistance over frost resistance. Our crop would have a great chance of survival in California since it is both drought resistant and crop resistant.

To get these traits, we started the mother generation with being heterozygous for both drought and pest resistance and the father generation with being  homozygous recessive for drought resistance and heterozyous for pest resistance. We chose these traits so their children would have the highest probability of being drought and pest resistant. By the third generation, we took two homozygous recessive alleles from the drought resistant and two homozygous dominant alleles from the pest resistant to make our crop be 100% drought resistant and crop resistant. 

In this project, we had to solve a murder with our group (Kian and Ayham). We were told that a man named Carleton Comet held a dinner to celebrate recently being released from jail and obtained a new name. At the dinner, he invited Nancy Normal, Sam Sophomore, Glen Glee, Theresa Terra, and Fred Flimmer. At 7:35 pm, Carleton was stabbed and 25 minutes later, at 8:00 pm, he was found to be dead.

There were many different mini labs we had to do and clues we were given to lead us to the murderer of Carleton. We first had to make pedigrees of each suspect's family from information given to us about them and their families. We used the pedigrees to find their blood types and diseases and how they were passed down from generations. We next did a DNA fingerprinting lab. We used gel electrophoresis and when we got our results it was a colorful assortment of red, yellow, and blue. We also were given samples of blood and then tested them with antigens to see the blood type of each person. 

My group concluded that Nancy Normal was the murders because her blood type matched crime scene 2. Also, her finger print matched the pen ink of the pen that wrote "You are a dead man." Another reason is her motive which was avenging her love. 

 With our groups (Kian and Ayham), we had to create our own modified organisms that were made via genetic engineering after we learned about GMOs. To achieve this, we used bacterial transformation, bacteria, genes, and more. Our goal was to show how a bacteria cell underwent transformation to produce features like AMP resistance and the ability to glow. Genetic engineering is used by people for a variety of purposes. One of the more notable ones is the use of GMOs in food to produce the biggest and best crop possible. In order to create green fluorescent bacteria for this study, we added pKiwi to an E. Coli cell and followed these step:

• add bacteria and plasmid to CaCl2

• heat shock

• feed cells with LB

• Spread bacteria on nutrients and anitbiotics

• Wait for a day for the bacteria to grow

• Check the results 

Things that went well - In my super crop project, I think that my group did a great job staying on task and not procrastinating. We all worked very well together and everyone had a part in either creating the slide show of doing the punnet square. In the murder mystery project, something that went well was I was very confident in our work. I think this was some of the work I have tried on the hardest this year because it was a fun, exciting project to do. In the pKiwi project, something that went well was that I learned a lot about bacteria and how it grows and glows. 

Things that went poorly - In my super crop project, I feel like there was not anything that went super poorly other than we had trouble figuring out what the project was even about. I think that if we thought about it a little harder we could'be figured it out. In the murder mystery project, the only thing that went poorly was my group was a little bit behind the other groups but eventually we caught up. In our pKiwi project, something that went poorly is I had no clue what was going on until the last day. I read the instructions and listened and stuff but I just didn't understand what was happening. 

6 C's that I did good on - In my super crop project, the "C" that I think my group and I did the best was collaboration. We all worked towards the success of our team and had different ownership that we took care of in our project. There was not one person that didn't do work in this project. In the murder mystery project, the "C" I think I did best was critical thinking.  I think I did best in this because we had to use lots of evidence to come up with a solution and victim for the murder. Finally, for the pKiwi project I think I did best on being a communicator. I think my team and I communicated really well while trying to figure out what to do while we were confused.

6 C's that I could improve on - In my super crop project, the "C" my group and I could have improved on was being conscious learners. Although we worked really well together, we had trouble getting started and were a little bit behind since we did not know how to start the project. We could improve this in the future by asking more questions and try reading and understanding the instructions better. In the murder mystery project, my group and I also could have improved on being conscious learners because we should've started our CLEAR paragraph sooner rather than later because we had to rush it at the end. To improve this in the future, I will not procrastinate in my work and at least start things as soon as I get them and then work on them over time. In the pKiwi lab, my group and I could have improve on collaborating, not with each other, but with other groups. My group and I were very confused in this lab but if we tried to talk to other groups to figure out what was going on, we would have had a better understanding of it. To improve this in the future, I will not be afraid to ask questions.