This is correct, although that is an extension of the RAPD method. But
then you are no longer using this techique, you are just doing straight
sequencing from the results of the RAPDs. It seems like a lot of time and
work to find the right primers though.
> Via the RAPD method
> I thought the only info that was fo certain was what the begining and end
> should be(given you find a conserved regiond) and the included sequence
> could vary.
Correct. One has no idea what is inbetween the sequences identified by
the primer.
> Should be possible to look at point mutation and inversions.
If you then go and sequence the section using another technique. The
other problem is too you won't know if you have chosen the right chunk
until you sequence it either. Hence you never know until near the end
that you have the "right" piece to look at. It's a lot of work that's
for sure!
> Of course genetics and biochem was a long time ago so I am sure things have
> changes some since then.
One thing is for sure genetic techniques change very rapidly with
technology. Some popular techniques used less then 5 years ago are now
rarely undertaken.
Cheers
Peter Unmack