Sites within the human genome where a short nucleotide sequence is repeated many times in a row are known as short tandem repeats.
DNA sequences with 2 to 6 base pairs are known as short tandem repeats (STRs), and they are dispersed throughout the genome. Multiple repetitions of these brief sequences are possible, and the number of repetitions varies greatly between people. The capacity to distinguish one sample from another is made possible by the great variability.
The Y-STR method's primary benefit is its capacity to identify the male component even in severe male-to-female DNA mixes. The number of semen donors for combinations of two or more male persons can be determined using it, as well as for quickly screening a large number of stains.
Due to their occasionally poor biostatistical efficiency and the potential to detect one or more genetic discrepancies that might potentially be explained by mutational events, STRs have a few drawbacks when examining genetic links in deficient cases.
To know more about short tandem repeats refer to: brainly.com/question/15016218
#SPJ1
Answer:
<u>To explain the bonds of injustice.</u>
Explanation:
He states in the passage that even though President Lincoln freed the slaves, the "bonds of injustice" are still present. He states how economic and social oppression are still going on, so this means that not all citizens are free. The injustice is still after the slaves supposedly are freed.
Answer:
A
the real answer is subway series in the newyork
Explanation:
and the closest one from these choices is choice A
Confraternities are laypeople who dedicated themselves to strict religious observance.
A confraternity is typically a Christian voluntary society of laypeople that was founded with the support of the Church authority to promote particular acts of Christian charity or piety.
A person who lacks a specific understanding of a subject or is not qualified for a given profession is referred to as a laypeople (sometimes spelt layman or laywoman).
Outside of a religious context, the term "laypeople" is arguably even more frequently used to describe individuals who do not belong to a certain profession or who lack expertise or knowledge in a particular area.
When someone requests an explanation in layman's terms, they want it to be as clear and uncomplicated as possible so that laypeople—non-experts—can understand it.
Learn more about laypeople here:
brainly.com/question/16184549
#SPJ4
The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
