Biology Lab Report on Drosophila Embryos Hatching Frequency

This biology lab report focuses on the process of collecting Drosophila embryos and determining the frequency at which they hatch. It includes data/results, figures, discussions, and conclusion.

Running head: BIOLOGY LAB REPORT 1
BIOLOGY LAB REPORT
Name of Student
Institution Affiliation
1

BIOLOGY LAB REPORT 2
Abstract
The main objective of carrying out the lab session was to understand the process of collecting
Drosophila embryos and determine the frequency at which they hatch. The lab session was
carried out in four sessions where by the students were divided into groups of two and
assigned to one stock which they were required to work on for all the four lab sessions
(Cronk, 2015). The main aim of carrying out lab session 1 was to enable the students know
how to handle the Drosophila embryos, all the embryos which were provided during this
session were less than 24 hours old. During lab session 2 the frequency hatching rate was
determined by counting the number of hatched and unhatched embryos. The main focus
during lab session 3 was to prepare cuticle of un-hatched embryos to be used in making
arguments about the frequency of different phenotypes.one was required to capture the digital
images which was used to be compared to the mystery crosses description during the lab
session 4. The hatching frequency rate was about 56% during the first attempt of the
experiment about 75% during the second attempt. It was observed from the digital image
which was captured that there was no belt which was missing and by comparing that with
mystery crosses description it was crystal clear that my mystery stock would either be G or H
because what was observed on the image agreed in what was described on this two mystery
stocks. This report contains the following sections, the data/result, figures, discussions, and
conclusion.
Data/results.
When the experiment was carried out for the first that it was observed the hatching frequency
rate was about 56% and when the experiment was carried out for the second time the
hatching frequency rate was about 75%.

BIOLOGY LAB REPORT 3
From the digital image which was captured it was observed that there was no band which was
missing.
Figures.
The digital photo which was captured during the lab session is as shown in figure 1 below.
Fig 1: the mutant phenotype
Discussions
Mystery crosses descriptions were provided and by comparing it with the hatching frequency
and by also looking at the image of the Drosophila which was taken one was required to
identify his/her cross.
I can eliminate option A because the cuticle pattern of ftz mutants comprised the deletion of
the denticle belts for the second thoracic (T2) and abdominal belts A1, A2, A3, A5, and

BIOLOGY LAB REPORT 4
A7.By observing the image of the Drosophila, it can be seen that there was no belt which was
missing.
I can eliminate option B was because the cuticle pattern of nkd mutants comprised a complete
deletion of all denticle belts, typically with remnants of 3-5 denticle belts. By observing the
image of the Drosophila, there is no belt which is missing, and that was not the mystery stock
(Soltis, 2014).
I can eliminate option C was because the cuticle pattern of the mutant embryos comprised a
complete deletion of the 2nd thoracic segment (T2) and the denticle belts for abdominal
segments A1, A3, A5, and A7. By observing the image of the Drosophila, there is no belt
which is missing, and that was not the mystery stock.
I eliminated option D because the open mutant phenotype comprises a deletion of denticle
belts for the 1st and 3rd thoracic (T1, T3) and A2, A4, A6 and A8 segments. When the image
of the Drosophila was keenly observed it was crystal clear that there was no belt which was
missing and that eliminated option D from being my mystery stock.
I can eliminate option E because the prd mutant phenotype is complementary to that of opa
with deletions of the denticle belts for T2, A1, A3, A5 and A7 with the remaining belts
appearing enlarged. What was in option E did not agree with what can be seen in the image
of the Drosophila which was taken during the fourth lab session.
Option F was eliminated because the phenotype of the runt mutants comprises deletions of
naked cuticle and what looks like a fusion of the following denticle belt pairs: T1/T2, T3/A1,
A2/A3, A4/A5, and A6/A7. By observing the image of the Drosophila, it can be seen that
there was no belt which was missing (Moody, 2012).

BIOLOGY LAB REPORT 5
In option G and H there was no belt which was missing, and that made the two options to
agree with the observations which were made on the Drosophila image that was showing that
there was no belt which was missing.
My mystery stock would either be G or H because what was observed on the image agreed in
what was described on this two mystery stocks (Moody, 2012).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the experiment was carried out in four lab sessions with the main objective to
characterize the phenotype associated with genetic perturbations that disrupt Drosophila
development. Nine different Drosophila crosses were assorted, each of them was involving
the mutations with different effects on Drosophila development in the egg collecting cages
(Soltis, 2014).
From the data which was obtained during the first experiment, it was found out that the
hatching frequency rate was 56% and during the second experiment it was found out that the
hatching frequency rate was about 75%.
From the image which was captured during the lab session four, it was found out that there
was no belt which was missing. Comparing the mystery crosses description which was
provided and the hatching frequency rate it was found out that the mystery cross was either G
or H.

BIOLOGY LAB REPORT 6
References.
Cronk, Q. C. (2015). Developmental Genetics and Plant Evolution. Paris: CRC Press.
Miglani, G. S. (2016). Developmental Genetics. Chicago: Gurbachan S. Miglani.
Moody, S. A. (2012). Principles of Developmental Genetics. London: Sally A. Moody.
Soltis, D. (2014). Developmental Genetics of the Flower: Advances in Botanical Research.
London: Elsevier.