Question

(d) State the null hypothesis for the experiment whose data are graphed in Figure 2. Provide evidence to support or refute the scientists’ claim that more colonies grew in strains C3 and C6 than in the other strains because the genes for proteins that are normally targeted by the toxic chemical contain nucleotides with incorrect bases in the C3 and C6 cells. The scientists additionally determined that the C3 and C6 strains had no decrease in virulence (disease-causing ability) in comparison with the virulence of the other clinical isolate strains and concluded that these two strains have mutator phenotypes. Explain why mutator phenotypes were found only among clinical isolate strains and not among environmental strains.

Answer 1

The null hypothesis here is "the insertion of the wild type MSH2 gene does NOT reduce the number of C. neoformans C3 and C6 cells". This hypothesis is not supported by Figure 2, thereby the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

In the scientific method, a null hypothesis is a plausible explanation that states that there is no statistically significant difference between a certain feature and/or variable of a particular population.

In this case, the null hypothesis indicates that there are no differences associated with the insertion of the wild-type MSH2 gene variant (i.e., the normal allele) in the growth rate of C. neoformans strains on a medium containing a toxic chemical (mutagenic agent).

Figure 2 does not support the null hypothesis because the growth of wild-type MSH2 gene inserted C. neoformans C3 and C6 strains is inhibited when they grow on a medium containing a toxic chemical, thereby this hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

Learn more in:

brainly.com/question/4454077