Het DNA

They can identify currently the genetic makeup of certain dog breeds (Mutts). It is relatively inexpensive and only needs a cheek swab.
$60, as I understand it. It was an article in Money Magazine recently or something like that.

PROBLEM IS:

Dogs are MUCH more popular than snakes, and even with that being said, the research for said snakes would be long and arduous.

The market for snake genetic identification is still relatively small... So to have people get out and do it, the motivation is not quite there yet.


I would love to see it done, but... yeah.

If they finished mapping the human genome how is it not possible to map a ball python genome? I also said one day it could be possible, not in 10 years. I have worked with a professor who has discovered 2 genes in his time. I know it is a very huge task and not very likely. I also said its not as easy as looking under a microscope, so I am not sure what you are arguing.

So to "DNA test" our snakes we would first have to isolate the genes that are responsible for the color morphs, which probably aren't straight forward for the really cool looking morphs (eg. linked, multiple loci, etc.). THAT is where the money comes in, it could take a few years of research to figure out exactly what makes a Pied...pied. The good thing is there are lots of great geneticists out there who probably have a good idea as to exactly where to start looking, 1-5 years max. The problem is getting them to work on snakes, and that is our biggest obstacle.

As far as I can tell they have only gotten the Anolis genome sequenced (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=genomeprj), but the point is it's on the way, a lot faster than you might suspect. Yes it took 3 billion to sequence our genome but that was already years ago, and in the field of molecular genetics that is ancient history (the pricetag is down to a few million already, which is still a lot of money but getting cheaper fast http://www.genengnews.com/articles/c...aid=939&chid=1 ...that's a great article, just a little out of date). Advances have vastly increased productivity, there is technology in development now that will streamline whole genome sequences in a matter of an afternoon (5-15 years away). So once we have identified our morph-genes, then a simple test is needed which could probably be done on a single computer chip sized machine (in development as well, computer-chip-sized sequencers). And by the time anyone DECIDES to figure out our morphs, then the technology will be there and will be super cheap. I have the feeling that with the high pricetag on some of these morphs there will be an incentive within the next 10-15 years for someone to pony up and get everything figured out.

The point is...it WILL happen in our lifetimes, and it may happen in some of our snakes lifetimes.

cgrinter, that's some interesting stuff. I have yet to read the links your provided, but that sounds like exciting news if you're correct about the fast paced technological advancements in these fields.

I'm involved heavily in DNA "barcoding" of small segments of mitochondrial DNA from insects (http://www.boldsystems.org/views/login.php). Basically, it costs us about 5 dollars per animal sequenced, granted it's only about 600-1000 basepairs of the mtDNA, but its cheap, and a LOT of money is getting spent doing it. Anyway, its a fast test to help delimit species boundaries and is somewhat analogous to what we are looking for in the morph-test.

Interesting job you have. Thanks for the replies. I was starting to kick myself for asking such a stupid question, but maybe it wasn't so bad.

Yeah, DNA "testing" is relatively cheap these days. I work in a lab where we're currently using map-based cloning to clone a gene in Medicago truncatula and running reactions, getting DNA sequence, etc just isn't that expensive now a days. But the problem with screening ball pythons (or other snakes) is that I can't think of a reason to do so other than scientific curiosity. Which unless there is a possible eventual benefit for people; it often doesn't get funded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cgrinter

(the pricetag is down to a few million already, which is still a lot of money but getting cheaper fast http://www.genengnews.com/articles/c...aid=939&chid=1 ...that's a great article, just a little out of date).

---

Well, the NHGRI wanted to bring the price down to $100,000 by 2009, and they aren't even close yet ;). Granted, it's considerably cheaper than it was 15 years ago, but I still consider $2-3 million a little outside my spending limit :P.

Quote:

---

Advances have vastly increased productivity, there is technology in development now that will streamline whole genome sequences in a matter of an afternoon (5-15 years away).
...
The point is...it WILL happen in our lifetimes, and it may happen in some of our snakes lifetimes.

---

You have more faith in the new technologies than I do ;). I've read a bit about what U of H and 454 have been doing, but I think they're eyes are bigger than their stomachs. Granted sequencing a virus or bacteria in one day is ages faster than even a year ago, but the human genome is... what, 3 billion base pairs? Versus bacteria and viruses, some of which don't even have a million.

As much as I would love to see genetic sequencing turn into a one day event at a cost of $1000... I think those numbers are a bit over the top. I hope I'm wrong ;).