, if one of the archaeological specimens lacked the celiac disease-causing epitope, how could PCR be used to identify the allele in a contemporary germplasm collection of wild wheats, and to assist in transferring the allele to modern wheat varieties?

, if one of the archaeological specimens lacked the celiac disease-causing epitope, how could PCR be used to identify the allele in a contemporary germplasm collection of wild wheats, and to assist in transferring the allele to modern wheat varieties?

Human Heredity: Principles and Issues (MindTap Course List)

11th Edition

ISBN:9781305251052

Author:Michael Cummings

Publisher:Michael Cummings

Chapter15: Genomes And Genomics

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 9QP

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Why dont genetic markers on the Y chromosome undergo recombination? Why is this lack of recombination a necessity for these markers to be used in tracing migrations?
What are the possible advantages or disadvantages to the organism or its offspring resulting from DNA modification by environmental factors?
Can DNA profiling identify the source of a sample with absolute certainty? Because any two human genomes differ at about 3 million sites, no two persons (except identical twins) have the same DNA sequence. Unique identification with DNA profiling is therefore possible if enough sites of variation are examined. However, the systems used today examine only a few sites of variation. Nonetheless, even with todays technology, which uses three to five loci, a match between two DNA patterns can be considered strong evidence that the two samples came from the same source. DNA profiling in criminal cases has been a useful tool in establishing both guilt and innocence. Originally, DNA databases contained only the profiles of convicted felons. Over time, however, law enforcement agencies have expanded the collection and use of DNA profiles, and these new policies are causing controversies, once again illustrating how the availability and use of genetic technology is often ahead of consensus on how and when this technology should be used. One of these new policies is postarrest DNA collection. At this writing, 18 U.S. states as well as the federal government allow the collection of DNA samples after an arrest but before conviction. These profiles become part of the states DNA database, which is often searched for evidence in cold cases. Courts across the country have ruled for and against the use of such samples. In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the collection of DNA samples from someone who has been arrested but not convicted is unconstitutional and violates an individuals right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The case began when a DNA sample was taken from Alonzo Jay King, Jr., who was arrested in 2009 for assault. In a database search, the DNA profile matched that taken from a 2003 unsolved rape. Based on the results of the database search, the man was sentenced to life in prison. The rape conviction was reversed, and the case was sent back to a lower court. As a result, some 16,000 DNA profiles collected postarrest but preconviction since 2009 cannot be used pending appeal of this decision. Before the court decision, postarrest DNA profiles were used in 65 arrests that resulted in 34 convictions, with an additional 12 cases pending. Supporters of postarrest DNA profiling claim that taking a DNA sample by a cheek swab is noninvasive and no different from taking someones fingerprints. Opponents claim that because DNA samples can be used to determine much more than a DNA profile, they are a threat to privacy, and that because minorities are more likely to be arrested, the practice is discriminatory. What are your thoughts on the collection and use of postarrest DNA profiles?
Can DNA profiling identify the source of a sample with absolute certainty? Because any two human genomes differ at about 3 million sites, no two persons (except identical twins) have the same DNA sequence. Unique identification with DNA profiling is therefore possible if enough sites of variation are examined. However, the systems used today examine only a few sites of variation. Nonetheless, even with todays technology, which uses three to five loci, a match between two DNA patterns can be considered strong evidence that the two samples came from the same source. DNA profiling in criminal cases has been a useful tool in establishing both guilt and innocence. Originally, DNA databases contained only the profiles of convicted felons. Over time, however, law enforcement agencies have expanded the collection and use of DNA profiles, and these new policies are causing controversies, once again illustrating how the availability and use of genetic technology is often ahead of consensus on how and when this technology should be used. One of these new policies is postarrest DNA collection. At this writing, 18 U.S. states as well as the federal government allow the collection of DNA samples after an arrest but before conviction. These profiles become part of the states DNA database, which is often searched for evidence in cold cases. Courts across the country have ruled for and against the use of such samples. In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the collection of DNA samples from someone who has been arrested but not convicted is unconstitutional and violates an individuals right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The case began when a DNA sample was taken from Alonzo Jay King, Jr., who was arrested in 2009 for assault. In a database search, the DNA profile matched that taken from a 2003 unsolved rape. Based on the results of the database search, the man was sentenced to life in prison. The rape conviction was reversed, and the case was sent back to a lower court. As a result, some 16,000 DNA profiles collected postarrest but preconviction since 2009 cannot be used pending appeal of this decision. Before the court decision, postarrest DNA profiles were used in 65 arrests that resulted in 34 convictions, with an additional 12 cases pending. Supporters of postarrest DNA profiling claim that taking a DNA sample by a cheek swab is noninvasive and no different from taking someones fingerprints. Opponents claim that because DNA samples can be used to determine much more than a DNA profile, they are a threat to privacy, and that because minorities are more likely to be arrested, the practice is discriminatory. Would you object if you were arrested for a minor offense, such as a traffic violation, and ordered to provide a DNA sample?
Can DNA profiling identify the source of a sample with absolute certainty? Because any two human genomes differ at about 3 million sites, no two persons (except identical twins) have the same DNA sequence. Unique identification with DNA profiling is therefore possible if enough sites of variation are examined. However, the systems used today examine only a few sites of variation. Nonetheless, even with todays technology, which uses three to five loci, a match between two DNA patterns can be considered strong evidence that the two samples came from the same source. DNA profiling in criminal cases has been a useful tool in establishing both guilt and innocence. Originally, DNA databases contained only the profiles of convicted felons. Over time, however, law enforcement agencies have expanded the collection and use of DNA profiles, and these new policies are causing controversies, once again illustrating how the availability and use of genetic technology is often ahead of consensus on how and when this technology should be used. One of these new policies is postarrest DNA collection. At this writing, 18 U.S. states as well as the federal government allow the collection of DNA samples after an arrest but before conviction. These profiles become part of the states DNA database, which is often searched for evidence in cold cases. Courts across the country have ruled for and against the use of such samples. In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the collection of DNA samples from someone who has been arrested but not convicted is unconstitutional and violates an individuals right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The case began when a DNA sample was taken from Alonzo Jay King, Jr., who was arrested in 2009 for assault. In a database search, the DNA profile matched that taken from a 2003 unsolved rape. Based on the results of the database search, the man was sentenced to life in prison. The rape conviction was reversed, and the case was sent back to a lower court. As a result, some 16,000 DNA profiles collected postarrest but preconviction since 2009 cannot be used pending appeal of this decision. Before the court decision, postarrest DNA profiles were used in 65 arrests that resulted in 34 convictions, with an additional 12 cases pending. Supporters of postarrest DNA profiling claim that taking a DNA sample by a cheek swab is noninvasive and no different from taking someones fingerprints. Opponents claim that because DNA samples can be used to determine much more than a DNA profile, they are a threat to privacy, and that because minorities are more likely to be arrested, the practice is discriminatory. What if you learned that law enforcement officials were saving the DNA sample for use in tests that might be developed in the future?
What is the role of Agrobacterium tumefaciens in the production of transgenic plants? a. Genes from A. fume fociens are inserted into plant DNA to give the plant different traits. b. Transgenic plants have been given resistance to the pest A. tumefacaens. c. A. wmefaciens is used as a vector to move genes into plant cells. d. Plant genes are incorporated into the genome of Agrobacterium tumefaciens.
You learned in the chapter that an STR locus is a locus where alleles differ in the number of copies of a short, tandemly repeated DNA sequence. PCR is used to determine the number of alleles present, as shown by the size of the DNA fragment amplified. In the Figure below are the results of PCR analysis for STR alleles at a locus where the repeat unit length is 9 bp, and alleles are known that have 5 to 11 copies of the repeat. Given the STR alleles present in the adults, state whether each of the four juveniles could or could not be an off-spring of those two adults. Explain your answers.
PCR can be used ______. a. as a cloning vector b. in DNA profiling c. to modify a human genome
Which members of the pedigree could have been carriers, and which might have been the source of the mutation?
If you were offered the chance to have the genome of your newborn sequenced at a cost of 1,000, would you do so?
What is the purpose and benefit of the polymerase chain reaction?
The Joneses were referred to a clinical geneticist because their 6-month-old daughter was failing to grow adequately and was having recurrent infections. The geneticist took a detailed family history (which was uninformative) and a medical history of their daughter. He discovered that their daughter had a history of a constant cough and wheeze that was becoming progressively worse, had difficulty gaining weight (failure to thrive), and had an extensive history of yeast infection (thrush) in her mouth. The geneticist did a simple blood test to check their daughters white blood count and determined that she had severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). The geneticist explained that SCID is an immune deficiency that causes a marked susceptibility to infections. The defining characteristic is usually a severe defect in both the T- and B-lymphocyte systems. This results in one or more infections within the first few months of life that are serious and may even be life-threatening. Based on the family history, it was possible that their daughter had inherited a mutant allele from each of them and therefore was homozygous for a gene that causes SCID. If so, each time the Joneses had a child, there would be a 25% chance that the child would have SCID. Prenatal testing is available to determine whether the developing fetus has SCID. If the Joneses want to be certain that their next child will not have SCID, what types of reproductive options do you think they have?