LO74 Explain how epigenetic markers are inherited. How do epigenetic marks compare in monozygotic twins? They stay the same throughout their lives because monozygotic twins are genetically identical. They are similar early in life but are increasingly dissimilar with age. DNA methylation patterns are similar, but histone acetylation patterns are very different. They are different at birth, but a similar environment during childhood causes them to become more similar with time.

Almost all calico cats (one is pictured in FIGURE 10.7B) are female. Why? B When this calico cat was an embryo, one of the two X chromosomes was inactivated in each of her cells. The descendants of the cells formed her adult body, which is a mosaic for expression of X chromosome genes. Black fur arises in patches where genes on the X chromosome inherited from one parent are expressed; orange fur arises in patches where genes on the X chromosome inherited from the other parent are expressed. FIGURE 10.7 Animated X chromosome inactivation.

In Section 12-1, Julie is concerned that she may develop breast cancer, but testing shows that she does not carry the rare high-risk BRCA1 and BRCA2 alleles. What if further testing showed that some of her aunts, her mother, and she carried a common low-risk allele for breast cancer. What would you recommend to Julie if you were her genetic counselor?

Changes in epigenetic modifications alter the accessibility and transcription of DNA. Describe how environmental stimuli, such as ultraviolet light exposure, could modify gene expression.

As a physician, you deliver a baby with protruding heels and clenched fists with the second and fifth fingers over-lapping the third and fourth fingers. a. What genetic disorder do you suspect the baby has? b. How do you confirm your suspicion?

Two types of mutations discussed in this chapter are (1) nucleotide changes and (2) unstable genome regions that undergo dynamic changes. Describe each type of mutation.

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?

How can external stimuli alter post-transcriptional control of gene expression?

One unexpected result of the sequencing of the human genome was the finding that mutations in a single gene can be responsible for multiple distinct disorders. For example, mutations in the RET gene can cause two different types of multiple endocrine neoplasias, familial medullary thyroid carcinoma, and Hirschsprung disease. How do you think mutations in a single gene can have such diverse effects?