subaeruginosa phenotypes that were DNA tested and the results
Sent some samples away to be tested, below are pics of the samples and the test results.
These were tested by - http://alvalab.es who i can recommend as a very good business where you can get samples tested.
I encourage people to do this, pay a couple bucks and get your mushrooms tested.
Subs from an isolated area, Eucalyptus forest, restricted area, so very little foot traffic etc...
Sent these as the 'control' sample so i had results to compare the other two samples to. (lol)
Gill freaks, growing in a dark pine forest, pines are probs, 10+ yrs old, pines in this spot previously felled and re planted.
White gills, growing in an open pine coup, felled a couple of years ago and replanted with new pines
The tef sequences for the three samples, 1, 2 and 3, in that order
Knowing nothing about DNA results or how to interpret them i fwd'd the results to a couple people who do, thank you to those people. Conclusion is - sample 1 - 100% P. subaeruginosa sample 2 - 98% P. subaeruginosa sample 3 - 98% P. subaeruginosa Interestingly i found out during this that there has not been enough work done with P. subaeruginosa to reference these results against other P. subaeruginosa results. Results from P. cyanescens which P. subaeruginosa are very closely related are used to asses subaeruginosa DNA results. This is how i understand it, though i may be wrong.
Subs from an isolated area, Eucalyptus forest, restricted area, so very little foot traffic etc...
Sent these as the 'control' sample so i had results to compare the other two samples to. (lol)
Gill freaks, growing in a dark pine forest, pines are probs, 10+ yrs old, pines in this spot previously felled and re planted.
White gills, growing in an open pine coup, felled a couple of years ago and replanted with new pines
The tef sequences for the three samples, 1, 2 and 3, in that order
Knowing nothing about DNA results or how to interpret them i fwd'd the results to a couple people who do, thank you to those people. Conclusion is - sample 1 - 100% P. subaeruginosa sample 2 - 98% P. subaeruginosa sample 3 - 98% P. subaeruginosa Interestingly i found out during this that there has not been enough work done with P. subaeruginosa to reference these results against other P. subaeruginosa results. Results from P. cyanescens which P. subaeruginosa are very closely related are used to asses subaeruginosa DNA results. This is how i understand it, though i may be wrong.
Sent some samples away to be tested, below are pics of the samples and the test results.
These were tested by - http://alvalab.es who i can recommend as a very good business where you can get samples tested.
I encourage people to do this, pay a couple bucks and get your mushrooms tested.
Subs from an isolated area, Eucalyptus forest, restricted area, so very little foot traffic etc...
Sent these as the 'control' sample so i had results to compare the other two samples to. (lol)
Gill freaks, growing in a dark pine forest, pines are probs, 10+ yrs old, pines in this spot previously felled and re planted.
White gills, growing in an open pine coup, felled a couple of years ago and replanted with new pines
The tef sequences for the three samples, 1, 2 and 3, in that order
Knowing nothing about DNA results or how to interpret them i fwd'd the results to a couple people who do, thank you to those people. Conclusion is - sample 1 - 100% P. subaeruginosa sample 2 - 98% P. subaeruginosa sample 3 - 98% P. subaeruginosa Interestingly i found out during this that there has not been enough work done with P. subaeruginosa to reference these results against other P. subaeruginosa results. Results from P. cyanescens which P. subaeruginosa are very closely related are used to asses subaeruginosa DNA results. This is how i understand it, though i may be wrong.
Subs from an isolated area, Eucalyptus forest, restricted area, so very little foot traffic etc...
Sent these as the 'control' sample so i had results to compare the other two samples to. (lol)
Gill freaks, growing in a dark pine forest, pines are probs, 10+ yrs old, pines in this spot previously felled and re planted.
White gills, growing in an open pine coup, felled a couple of years ago and replanted with new pines
The tef sequences for the three samples, 1, 2 and 3, in that order
Knowing nothing about DNA results or how to interpret them i fwd'd the results to a couple people who do, thank you to those people. Conclusion is - sample 1 - 100% P. subaeruginosa sample 2 - 98% P. subaeruginosa sample 3 - 98% P. subaeruginosa Interestingly i found out during this that there has not been enough work done with P. subaeruginosa to reference these results against other P. subaeruginosa results. Results from P. cyanescens which P. subaeruginosa are very closely related are used to asses subaeruginosa DNA results. This is how i understand it, though i may be wrong.
