Microbial Mirth

Here are a few of the memes I made throughout the semester for BIOS 4607, Molecular Biology of Microbes, taught by Dr. Brian Hammer. At the risk of making these worse, I have provided a brief explanation under each meme.

An auxotrophic mutant is one which has a mutation in a gene that produces an essential product for the organism. If the organism is plated onto media with the required substance, auxotrophs will be able to grow. A common example of this phenomenon are histidine mutants, denoted His-, which are unable to synthesize the amino acid histidine. Because histidine is essential for growth, this means that the His- mutants will only grow on media with histidine. However, by streaking auxotrophic colonies onto limiting media—in this case, media lacking histidine—the only mutants that will grow are those which somehow reverted back to a histidine-producing state. For example, if the auxotrophs were unable to produce a histidine due to a nonsense mutation—one which causes ribosomes to halt translation prematurely and is often the result of a single nucleotide change—reversal in one of the descendants of the mutant will be quite likely. However, these revertants will only be apparent once their His- friends are dead as a result of selecting against them.

Messenger RNA, or mRNA, is transcribed from DNA by RNA polymerase. The strand of mRNA is then used by ribosomes, which move along the mRNA from its 5′ end to its 3′ end as they build proteins. RNA often has secondary structures, which form when the RNA loops around and binds to itself. These patterns can be quite intricate and sometimes result in complex molecules such as enzymes, which are called ribozymes when made out of RNA. With regards to ribosomes (which are themselves partially made out of ribozymes and other types of RNA), loops which form at the 3′ end of the mRNA help knock the ribosome off the strand, at which point it will be degraded by enzymes called exoribonucleases. One enzyme which assists in this process is polyadenylate polymerase, which adds lots of adenine (A) to the end of the mRNA to allow exoribonucleases to digest the strand properly.

This is a play on the famous “Kowalski, analysis” meme. Lambda phage is a well-studied bacterial pathogen which, instead of replicating upon arrival in its microbial host, integrates itself into the chromosome, where it may stay indefinitely. Naturally, the virus does not decide to leave its host once it gets tired of “chilling;” rather, it is typically induced to exit its host by stressful conditions such as exposure to ultraviolet light.

This meme was the result of a comment my professor made about how when he was a student in the 70s, he knew academics who would use their bare hands to pull electrophoresis gels out of solutions with ethidium bromide, a highly toxic mutagen. In general, safety protocols have improved significantly over the last century, to the point where certain practices seem like jokes today; for example, chemists using their mouths and a hose to pipette dangerous chemicals. Another famous example is the discovery of phenylthiocarbamide, a chemical which only certain humans can taste. This discovery was made when the chemist studying it accidentally spilled some powder into the air and tasted nothing, whereas his nearby colleague told him that whatever he was working with tasted disgusting. Because it was common to taste chemicals at the time, the chemist brought the powder to various people to see who could taste it and who could not. Fortunately, the compound isn’t terribly toxic at usual doses, though nowadays I doubt the scientific community would be so nonchalant about a scientist casually testing a chemical on civilians.

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.