Answered: Im having trouble answering this…

Im having trouble answering this question. What type of cells can be altered by GETs like CRISPR and what types of cells cannot and why is this so?

BIOLOGY:CONCEPTS+APPL.(LOOSELEAF)

10th Edition

ISBN:9781305967359

Author:STARR

Publisher:STARR

Chapter14: Human Inheritance

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 11SA

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

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?
Analyzing Cloned Sequences A base change (A to T) is the mutational event that created the mutant sickle cell anemia allele of beta globin. This mutation destroys an MstII restriction site normally present in the beta globin gene. This difference between the normal allele and the mutant allele can be detected with Southern blotting. Using a labeled beta globin gene as a probe, what differences would you expect to see for a Southern blot of the normal beta globin gene and the mutant sickle cell gene?
Associated SNPs outside of gene no effect on protein production or function. T G Associated SNPs within gene no effect on protein production or function Regulatory sequences A Coding region с T Noncoding SNP: changes amount of protein produced www.Biolnteractive.org Causative SNPs within gene Unassociated SNP far from gene on same chromosome or different chromosome Protein Coding SNP: changes amino acid sequence b. Which types of SNPs might be identified in a GWAS? 4. Consider the different types of SNPs shown in Figure 3: associated, unassociated, and causative (including both noncoding and coding). a. Which types of SNPs affect protein production or function for the gene of interest? Figure 3. A diagram showing various ways in which a SNP could be associated with a certain gene and its trait. GWAS in the News Read the following news release, which describes a GWAS study with dogs. Note that a dog's coat refers to its fur or hair. Variants in Three Genes Account for Most Dog Coat…
Anti apoptosome anti N anti protein X anti caspase based on thé data above where is the WT protein actually cleaved D380 D380 and D835 D835 D835 and D840 D840 all are cleaved none are cleaved D380 and D840 if you compared the size of WT and the D380E mutant before apoptosis on a western blot how would they appear? D380E would be larger they would be indistinguishable WT would be larger how many amino acids long is the larger band in the lane labeled D380E/D835E
Please answer this asap. Thanks, You have discovered a new plasmid RK21 in a unique bacterial community. As a first step towardunderstanding this plasmid, you digest the plasmid with three restriction enzymes: SspI, XhoI andSmaI. You run the digested plasmid DNA on an agarose gel, along with an uncut sample of theRK21 plasmid DNA as a control.Unfortunately you forget to load a DNA ladder, and obtain the following results. Assumecomplete digestion of all samples or all the digests worked completely
please help me with this question. As this is a non-directional cloning, recombinant plasmids can contain an insert ligated into the vector in two different orientations. Provide two diagrams to illustrate the two potential recombinant plasmids, with the inserts ligated in opposite orientations. Include all RE sites and distances between sites on the diagram.
These are written as either accurate or contain errors. Rewrite each one with an error as an accurate statement. Please have an explanation. Thank you! In eukaryotes RNA polymerase binds to the activator, specifically at the TATA box to align with the translational start site. Transcription Factors can have more than one function domain. One is the DNA-binding domain and the other is a trans-activation domain. Additive alleles function at one gene to contribute to the phenotype of an organisms, while non-additive alleles at that one gene do not add to the phenotype.
Multiple choice: Transposable elements can do all of the following except move from one position to another in a chromosome. cause disruption in genes in which they insert. move from one cell to another. copy themselves, and the copy can insert somewhere else.
What would happen in the directionality of that activity were reversed? Would proofreading work? If the genomic DNA polymerase were missing its proofreading function (deletion in the domain or subunit), what phenotype would you expect to see in those cells? Please give me the correct answer quickly I will give you upvote
gene. If the JM109 strain is transformed by the PBKSK plasmid, the strain will produce the B-galactosidase (from the lac gene) and will hydrolyze X-gal to produce the blue compound. Therefore, colonies that were transformed and contain the pBSKS wil you appear blue. IPTG & X-Gal & NO colonies Amp E. coli JM109 E. coli JM109 50 mM calcium chloride-15% glycerol lac lac lac IPTG & I Recovery X-Gal solution at -702C PBSKS White colonies E. coli JM109 E. coli JM109 ampR amp I amp lac lac Heat Shock Non-transformed 42°C E. coli JM109 E. coli JM109 amps amps lac lac IPTG & X-Gal lac I Recovery lac PBSKS BLUE colonies PBSKS ampRI (amp Transformed IPTG & X-Gal & BLUE colonies Amp Hypotheses: Circle the correct answer 1. If PBSKS is transformed into JM109 cells, colonies will be (able/not able) to grow in the presence of ampicillin. a. Why? _ 2. If PBSKS is transformed into JM109 cells, colonies in media with IPTG (will/will not) induce the production the B- galactosidase enzyme. a. Why?_ 3. If…
Please help, doesn't it usually start before the promoter or after, please just give me a brief explanation