diploid

Your diploid genome is roughly six billion base pairs.

You cannot take this and infer the whole diploid genome of the individual.

Yes - if you'd actually bring this into humans, you'd probably have to add _two_ extra chromosomes since humans are diploid.

One important tool to dig into this is syndip, which is a simulated synthetic diploid where the full haplotypes are known.

To paraphrase TFA's title, "human beings are the sex organs of the human genome".To borrow the terminology used for plants and algae, we are the diploid sporophyte phase.

Step 1: the researchers use a diploid cell line where the entire diploid X chromosome is homozygous: both copies of the X chromosome in this cell line are identical.

This feels very much like a prototypical version of sex with two 'haploid' cells merging to form a 'diploid'.It's not quite clear from the article what happens to these merged cells in the long-run.

Also, since the triploid bananas are sterile, there is a smaller likelihood that the alterations will escape into the wild and ruin fertile diploid bananas.

SO I really enjoyed this: "Unlike Neanderthals and Denisovans, who had only two diploid copies, we carry up to 20 copies of the AMY1 gene, which produces salivary amylase.

It is much easier to change external categorisations of one's "culture" than to change external categorisations of one's "race"[1].Then again, I think how we treat people ought to be just as independent of our guess as to their "culture" as of our guess as to their "race".All humans, with the exception of Jesus H. Christ, are diploid.

Neanderthals and Denisovans were not the same species as us.> "Unlike Neanderthals and Denisovans, who had only two diploid copies, [homo sapiens] carry up to 20 copies of the AMY1 gene, which produces salivary amylase.

The genetic mechanism behind eusociality in bees and ants is haplodiploidy[1], which among other things makes the relatedness of workers up to 75% rather than the 50% between siblings in diploid organisms.