Answer the following scenario like you are the experts in the field of genetic engineering. Write your answers below. A molecular geneticist hopes to find a gene in human liver cells that codes for an important blood- clotting protein. He knows that the nucleotide sequence of a small part of the GTGGACTGACA. Briefly explain how to obtain the desired gene. gene is

What Are Clones? Cloning is a general term used for whole organisms and DNA sequences. Define what we mean when we say we have a clone.

Which of the following best describes the process of DNA sequencing? a. DNA is separated on a gel, and the different bands are labeled with fluorescent nucleotides and scanned with a laser. b. A laser is used to fluorescently label the nucleotides present within the DNA, the DNA is run on a gel, and then the DNA is broken into fragments. c. Nucleotides are scanned with a laser and incorporated into the DNA that has been separated on a gel, and then the DNA is amplified with PCR. d. Fragments of DNA are produced in a reaction that labels them with any of four different fluorescent dyes, and the fragments then are run on a gel and scanned with a laser. e. DNA is broken down into its constituent nucleotides, and the nucleotides are then run on a gel and purified with a laser.

Who Owns Your Genome? John Moore, an engineer working on the Alaska oil pipeline, was diagnosed in the mid-1970s with a rare and fatal form of cancer known as hairy cell leukemia. This disease causes overproduction of one type of white blood cell known as a T lymphocyte. Moore went to the UCLA Medical Center for treatment and was examined by Dr. David Golde, who recommended that Moores spleen be removed in an attempt to slow down or stop the cancer. For the next 8 years, John Moore returned to UCLA for checkups. Unknown to Moore, Dr. Golde and his research assistant applied for and received a patent on a cell line and products of that cell line derived from Moores spleen. The cell line, named Mo, produced a protein that stimulates the growth of two types of blood cells that are important in identifying and killing cancer cells. Arrangements were made with Genetics Institute, a small start-up company, and then Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, to develop the cell line and produce the growth-stimulating protein. Moore found out about the cell line and its related patents and filed suit to claim ownership of his cells and asked for a share of the profits derived from the sale of the cells or products from the cells. Eventually, the case went through three courts, and in July 1990n years after the case beganthe California Supreme Court ruled that patients such as John Moore do not have property rights over any cells or tissues removed from their bodies that are used later to develop drugs or other commercial products. This case was the first in the nation to establish a legal precedent for the commercial development and use of human tissue. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 prevents the sale of human organs. Current laws allow the sale of human tissues and cells but do not define ownership interests of donors. Questions originally raised in the Moore case remain largely unresolved in laws and public policy. These questions are being raised in many other cases as well. Who owns fetal and adult stem-cell lines established from donors, and who has ownership of and a commercial interest in diagnostic tests developed through cell and tissue donations by affected individuals? Who benefits from new genetic technologies based on molecules, cells, or tissues contributed by patients? Are these financial, medical, and ethical benefits being distributed fairly? What can be done to ensure that risks and benefits are distributed in an equitable manner? Gaps between technology, laws, and public policy developed with the advent of recombinant DNA technology in the 1970s, and in the intervening decades, those gaps have not been closed. These controversies are likely to continue as new developments in technology continue to outpace social consensus about their use. Should the physicians at UCLA have told Mr. Moore that his cells and its products were being commercially developed?

Who Owns Your Genome? John Moore, an engineer working on the Alaska oil pipeline, was diagnosed in the mid-1970s with a rare and fatal form of cancer known as hairy cell leukemia. This disease causes overproduction of one type of white blood cell known as a T lymphocyte. Moore went to the UCLA Medical Center for treatment and was examined by Dr. David Golde, who recommended that Moores spleen be removed in an attempt to slow down or stop the cancer. For the next 8 years, John Moore returned to UCLA for checkups. Unknown to Moore, Dr. Golde and his research assistant applied for and received a patent on a cell line and products of that cell line derived from Moores spleen. The cell line, named Mo, produced a protein that stimulates the growth of two types of blood cells that are important in identifying and killing cancer cells. Arrangements were made with Genetics Institute, a small start-up company, and then Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, to develop the cell line and produce the growth-stimulating protein. Moore found out about the cell line and its related patents and filed suit to claim ownership of his cells and asked for a share of the profits derived from the sale of the cells or products from the cells. Eventually, the case went through three courts, and in July 1990n years after the case beganthe California Supreme Court ruled that patients such as John Moore do not have property rights over any cells or tissues removed from their bodies that are used later to develop drugs or other commercial products. This case was the first in the nation to establish a legal precedent for the commercial development and use of human tissue. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 prevents the sale of human organs. Current laws allow the sale of human tissues and cells but do not define ownership interests of donors. Questions originally raised in the Moore case remain largely unresolved in laws and public policy. These questions are being raised in many other cases as well. Who owns fetal and adult stem-cell lines established from donors, and who has ownership of and a commercial interest in diagnostic tests developed through cell and tissue donations by affected individuals? Who benefits from new genetic technologies based on molecules, cells, or tissues contributed by patients? Are these financial, medical, and ethical benefits being distributed fairly? What can be done to ensure that risks and benefits are distributed in an equitable manner? Gaps between technology, laws, and public policy developed with the advent of recombinant DNA technology in the 1970s, and in the intervening decades, those gaps have not been closed. These controversies are likely to continue as new developments in technology continue to outpace social consensus about their use. Do you think that donors or patients who provide cells and/or tissues should retain ownership of their body parts or should share in any financial benefits that might derive from their use in research or commercial applications?

VISUALIZE Sketch a pyrimidine nucleotide subunit that would be found only in RNA. Circle and label the three components that make up this type of nucleotide. Explain what changes in the functional groups of this subunit would have to occur for it to be found in a DNA molecule.

An adult with a history of tanning has his genome sequenced. The beginning of a protein-coding region of his DNA reads ATGGGGATATGGCAT. If the protein-coding region of a healthy adult reads ATGGGGATATGAGCAT, identify the site and type of mutation.

Analyzing Cloned Sequences What kind of information can a DNA sequence provide to a researcher studying a disease-causing gene?

Genetics in Practice case studies are critical-thinking exercises that allow you to apply your new knowledge of human genetics to real-life problems. Case study Michelle was a 42-year-old woman who had declined counselling and amniocentesis at 16 weeks of pregnancy but was referred for genetic counseling after an abnormal ultrasound at 20 weeks of gestation. After the ultrasound, a number of findings suggested a possible chromosome abnormality in the fetus. The ultrasound showed swelling under the skin at the back of the fetuss neck; shortness of the femur, humerus, and ear length; and underdevelopment of the middle section of the fifth finger. Michelles physician performed an amniocentesis and referred her to the genetics program. Michelle and her husband did not want genetic counseling before receiving the results of the cytogenetic analysis. This was Michelles third pregnancy; she and her husband, Mike, had a 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son. At their next session, the counselor informed the couple that the results revealed trisomy 21, explored their understanding of Down syndrome, and elicited their experiences with people with disabilities. She also reviewed the clinical concerns revealed by the ultrasound and associated anomalies (mild to severe intellectual disability, cardiac defects, and kidney problems). The options available to the couple were outlined. They were provided with a booklet written for parents making choices after the prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. After a week of careful deliberation with their family, friends, and clergy, they elected to terminate the pregnancy. Do you think that this couple had the right to terminate the pregnancy in light of the prenatal diagnosis? If not, under what circumstance would a couple have this right? What other options were available to the couple?

If you had a chance to get your genome sequenced, what are some questions you might be able to have answered about yourself?