Explain why they qualify as machines based on their functions and component molecules.

Briefly describe the function of the following in protein synthesis. a. rRNA b. tRNA c. mRNA

Which of the following sequences correctly lists in order the steps involved in the incorporation of a proteinaceous molecule within a cell? protein synthesis of the protein on the ribosome; modification in the Golgi apparatus; packaging in the endoplasmic reticulum; tagging in the vesicle synthesis of the protein on the lysosome; tagging in the Golgi; packaging in the vesicle; distribution in the endoplasmic reticulum synthesis of the protein on the ribosome; modification in the endoplasmic reticulum; tagging in the Golgi; distribution via the vesicle synthesis of the protein on the lysosome; packaging in the vesicle; distribution via the Golgi; tagging in the endoplasmic reticulum

The key components of desmosomes are cadherins and. actin microfilaments intermediate filaments microtubules

IS. Alternative splicing has been estimated to occur in more than 95% of multi-exon genes. Which of the following is not an evolutionary advantage of alternative splicing? Alternative splicing increases diversity without increasing genome size Different gene isoforms can be expressed in different tissues Alternative splicing creates shorter mRNA transcripts Different gene isoforms can be expressed during different stages of development.

Put the following processes in order of their occurrence during expression of a eukaryotic gene: a. mRNA processing c. transcription b. translation d. RNA leaves nucleus

Figure 15.16 Many antibiotics inhibit bacterial protein synthesis. For example, tetracycline blocks the A site on the bacterial ribosome, and chloramphenicol blocks peptidyl transfer. What specific effect would you expect each of these antibiotics to have on protein synthesis? Tetracycline would directly affect: tRNA binding to the ribosome ribosome assembly growth of the protein chain Chloramphenicol would directly affect tRNA binding to the ribosome ribosome assembly growth of the protein chain

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?

Eukaryotic mRNA: usessnRNPs to cut out introns and seal together translatableexons. uses a spliceosome mechanism made of DNA to recognizeconsensus sequences to cut and splice. has a guanine cap on its 39 end and a poly(A) tail on its 59 end. is composed of adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. codes the guanine cap and poly(A) tail from the DNAtemplate.