Week 15 — Lab / Scientific Inquiry · "Whose DNA Is It? A Virtual Gel"

Course: Introduction to Biology — General Biology I (BIOL 101) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Castellano
Objective: Objective 8 — run a virtual gel electrophoresis, read DNA bands, and match a crime-scene sample to a suspect by band pattern · SLO A (scientific reasoning; data interpretation)
Worth 50 points · Labs group = 15% of the grade · Lab 15
Format: a free virtual simulation (no special equipment) — you'll "run" DNA samples on a gel, read the bands, solve a DNA-fingerprinting case, and then catch the AI's mistakes when it interprets the gel.

This is the course's signature weekly component. Every instructional week has one lab. This week's uses a free virtual gel-electrophoresis simulation (Learn.Genetics, University of Utah). All lab resources are links to external sites — nothing to buy or download. (This is the term's final lab; next week is the cumulative final.)

---

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned the biotechnology toolkit: PCR copies DNA, a gel sorts it by size, and the result — a pattern of bands — is unique enough (except in identical twins) to act as a DNA fingerprint. The rule that makes a gel readable is simple and a little counterintuitive: smaller fragments travel FARTHER from the wells, because they slip through the gel mesh while big fragments snag near the top. "Small and fast runs far."

The phenomenon: DNA is negatively charged, so when you switch on an electric field it migrates toward the positive end of the gel. Different-sized fragments separate into bands. Today you'll use that to do real forensic reasoning: given a crime-scene sample and two suspects, whose DNA matches?

Background (optional, ~9 min): Amoeba Sisters — "Gel Electrophoresis" (covers how a gel sorts by size, longer vs. smaller fragments, and DNA fingerprinting): 🔗 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDZUAleWX78

---

Part 2 — Your Scientific Question & Hypothesis

The question: Given a crime-scene DNA sample and two suspects, can a gel's band pattern tell us whose DNA it is — and how does fragment size determine how far each band travels?

Before you start, write your hypothesis (an "if… then…" statement is perfect):

If the crime-scene DNA came from one of the suspects, then its band pattern on the gel will line up exactly with __ (Suspect 1 / Suspect 2 / neither), and the ____ (smaller / larger) fragments will travel farther from the wells.

Write it down now — you'll compare it to your results at the end. (A "wrong" prediction is completely fine; science is about testing, not guessing right.)

---

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure (free virtual simulation)

You need: a computer/tablet with a browser. No lab equipment.

Primary simulation — Learn.Genetics "Gel Electrophoresis" (University of Utah):
🔗 https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/labs/gel/

Procedure:
1. Open the simulation and work through the steps to load DNA samples into the wells and run the gel (switch on the current). Watch the fragments migrate.
2. Notice the direction of travel (DNA moves toward the positive electrode) and how the bands spread out by size as the gel runs.
3. Observe which bands end up farthest from the wells and which stay closest. Confirm for yourself: are the far ones the smaller or the larger fragments?
4. Then apply the idea to the forensic case in Part 4: compare the Crime-Scene band pattern to Suspect 1 and Suspect 2 and decide whose pattern lines up.

Backup / extension (also verified): for the forensic framing, see Learn.Genetics — "Can DNA Demand a Verdict?" (how DNA profiling is used to match or exclude suspects, including PCR amplification of trace evidence): 🔗 https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/science/forensics/ · If the gel simulation won't load on your device, you can complete the analysis using the case data table in Part 4 and the model gel in Part 8.

---

Part 4 — The Case & Data Table (fill this in)

The case. A crime-scene DNA sample has been processed and run alongside two suspects. Each lane shows bands at certain fragment sizes (in base pairs, bp). Record whether a band is present at each size for each person, then note how far each band travels (near the well = large; far from the well = small).

Reference (from the size ladder), distance order: a 500-bp band travels farther than a 2000-bp band, which travels farther than a 4000-bp band.

Band table — mark P (present) or — (absent) for each fragment size:

Fragment size	Travels…	Crime scene	Suspect 1	Suspect 2
500 bp	farthest (smallest)	______	______	______
1000 bp	far	______	______	______
2000 bp	middle	______	______	______
4000 bp	least far (largest)	______	______	______

(Use the simulation's case, or the model case in Part 8, to fill the cells. The question you're answering: which suspect's column of P's and —'s matches the Crime-Scene column exactly?)

Your verdict: The crime-scene DNA matches ______ because its band pattern lines up with that person's.

---

Part 5 — Identify Your Experiment's Parts

Answer in a sentence each:
1. What is being separated on the gel (and by what property)? __
2. What makes the fragments move, and in which direction? _
3. The rule that lets you read the gel: smaller fragments travel than larger ones.
4. How do you decide two DNA samples match? ___

---

Part 6 — Analysis Questions

1. Which suspect's DNA matches the crime scene? How did you decide (what exactly did you compare)?
2. A band sitting far from the wells — is that fragment large or small? Explain why using the gel-mesh idea.
3. If you put a 200-bp fragment and a 3000-bp fragment in the same lane, which ends up farther from the well? Why?
4. Why might investigators run PCR before the gel? (Hint: think about how much DNA a single hair or drop of saliva contains.)
5. Connect it: a gel cleanly excludes a suspect whose pattern doesn't match, but a matching pattern is usually treated as one line of evidence rather than absolute proof. Give one reason a match alone might not be enough to convict.

---

Part 7 — AI-Critique Moment (required — this is the BYOAI step)

Now bring in your approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) and be the scientist who checks its work.

1. Describe your gel to the chatbot and ask it: "On a DNA gel, do smaller or larger fragments travel farther from the wells? My crime-scene bands match Suspect 2's pattern but not Suspect 1's — which suspect is the source? And what's the difference between PCR and gel electrophoresis?"
2. Check everything it says against your own work:
   - Did it get the gel rule right — that smaller fragments travel farther — or did it claim larger fragments travel farther? (Chatbots get this backwards constantly.)
   - Did it correctly read the match (Suspect 2, because the band patterns line up), or did it guess?
   - Did it keep PCR (copies) and gel electrophoresis (sorts) straight, or did it blur them into one process?
3. Write 2–3 sentences reporting what the AI got right and at least one thing you had to correct or watch carefully. (If it happened to get everything right, say how you verified each claim — that's the skill.)

The habit all term: the tool drafts, you judge. A chatbot will confidently reverse the gel rule or merge PCR with the gel — catching it is the point. You've done this fifteen weeks running; on next week's final, that habit is exactly what we're testing.

---

Part 8 — What to Submit

Submit a single document (or text entry) with: your hypothesis, your completed band table and verdict, your Part 5 labels, your Part 6 answers, and your Part 7 AI-critique paragraph. Due Sunday, Dec 13, 11:59 p.m. (50 points).

---

Instructor answer key & model data — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

The size→distance logic and the band-match scenario below were independently re-verified with a scratchpad logic check before shipping (lab logic gate: PASS). Exact band sets in the live Learn.Genetics simulation may differ; the gradable facts are (1) smaller fragments travel farther, and (2) a match is read by aligning band patterns. Grade the reasoning, not a specific simulation screen.

Model case (clean, illustrative band sets):

Fragment size	Travels…	Crime scene	Suspect 1	Suspect 2
500 bp	farthest (smallest)	P	—	P
1000 bp	far	—	P	—
2000 bp	middle	P	P	P
4000 bp	least far (largest)	P	P	P

• Crime-scene pattern = {500, 2000, 4000 bp}.
• Suspect 1 pattern = {1000, 2000, 4000 bp} → differs at the smallest band (1000 vs. 500) → NOT a match.
• Suspect 2 pattern = {500, 2000, 4000 bp} → identical to the crime scene → MATCH.
• Verdict: the crime-scene DNA matches Suspect 2. ✓ (Re-verified: the crime-scene set equals Suspect 2's set and not Suspect 1's.)
• Distance check: the 500-bp band is farthest from the well (smallest = farthest); the 4000-bp band is closest (largest = least far). ✓ (Re-verified: 500 bp travels farther than 2000 bp travels farther than 4000 bp.)

Expected answers:
- Part 5: (1) DNA fragments, separated by size; (2) an electric field moves the negatively charged DNA toward the positive electrode; (3) smaller fragments travel farther; (4) two samples match when their band patterns line up at the same positions.
- Part 6: (1) Suspect 2 — the crime-scene bands align with Suspect 2's at every position (and differ from Suspect 1's). (2) A far band is a small fragment: small fragments slip through the gel mesh and migrate far, while large fragments snag near the wells. (3) The 200-bp fragment travels farther (smaller = farther). (4) A trace sample (one hair, a little saliva) has too little DNA to read, so PCR amplifies it into millions of copies first; then the gel sorts it. (5) A match is one line of evidence — possible contamination, human/lab error, or a close relative with similar DNA means a match is strongest combined with other evidence (motive, additional forensics); exclusion (a non-match) is more definitive.
- Part 7 (AI-critique): full credit for a specific catch — most commonly the AI reversing the gel rule ("larger fragments travel farther"), mis-reading the match, or blurring PCR and gel electrophoresis. Full credit also if the student verified each AI claim against their own gel reasoning.

Grading rubric — 50 points

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Hypothesis — a clear, testable "if…then…" prediction naming a suspect + the smaller/larger fragment direction (8)	8	4–6	0–2
Band table + verdict — pattern recorded and the correct suspect identified by band-matching (15)	15	8–12	0–6
Variables/parts (Part 5) — what's separated, what moves it, the gel rule, how a match is read (12)	12	6–10	0–4
Analysis (Part 6) — correct match + small/large reasoning + why PCR before the gel + why exclusion beats a stand-alone match (10)	10	5–8	0–4
AI-critique (Part 7) — names a specific thing checked/corrected in the AI's interpretation (5)	5	3	0–2

Quality gate (self-checked): every claim in the model case is pre-computed and independently re-verified via a scratchpad logic check (lab logic gate: PASS) — smaller fragments travel farther (500 bp > 2000 bp > 4000 bp by distance), and the crime-scene band set {500, 2000, 4000} matches Suspect 2's set (not Suspect 1's {1000, 2000, 4000}). The science (DNA is negatively charged → migrates to the positive end; a gel sorts by size; PCR copies, the gel sorts) is correct, and the band-matching logic maps to the verdict. No live-simulation screen is asserted as "the" answer — the key grades the reasoning and the band-matching, not a specific screenshot.