National Institute of Health's (NIH) Covid-19 Research page: https://covid19.nih.gov/. After reviewing the material, why is it important for research proposals to be vetted and detailed? Is there a research topic you're interested in (it does not need to be related to Covid-19)?

National Institute of Health's (NIH) Covid-19 Research page: https://covid19.nih.gov/. After reviewing the material, why is it important for research proposals to be vetted and detailed? Is there a research topic you're interested in (it does not need to be related to Covid-19)?

Human Heredity: Principles and Issues (MindTap Course List)

11th Edition

ISBN:9781305251052

Author:Michael Cummings

Publisher:Michael Cummings

Chapter14: Biotechnology And Society

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 13QP

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Although it is well known that X-rays cause mutations, they are routinely used to diagnose medical problems, including potential tumors, broken bones, and dental cavities. Why is this done? What precautions need to be taken?
The prospect of using gene therapy to alleviate genetic conditions is still a vision of the future. Gene therapy for adenosine deaminase deficiency has proved to be quite promising, but many obstacles remain to be overcome. Currently, the correction of human genetic defects is done using retroviruses as vectors. For this purpose, viral genes are removed from the retroviral genome, creating a vector capable of transferring human structural genes into sites on human chromosomes within target-tissue cells. Do you see any potential problems with inserting pieces of a retroviral genome into humans? If so, are there ways to combat or prevent these problems?
A scientist discovers a virus encoding a Protein X that degrades a subunit of the elF4F complex. Knowing that this virus transcribes its own mRNAs in the cytoplasm of human cells, why would Protein X be an effective virulence factor?
The Adaptive Immune Response Is a Specific Defense Against Infection In cystic fibrosis gene therapy, scientists propose the use of viral vectors to deliver normal genes to cells in the lungs. What immunological risks are involved in this procedure?
In selecting target cells to receive a transferred gene in gene therapy, what factors do you think would have to be taken into account?
Antibiotics and Protein Synthesis Antibiotics are molecules produced by microorganisms as defense mechanisms. The most effective antibiotics work by interfering with essential biochemical or reproductive processes. Many antibiotics block or disrupt one or more stages in protein synthesis. Some of these are mentioned here. Tetracyclines are a family of chemically related compounds used to treat several types of bacterial infections. Tetracyclines interfere with the initiation of translation. The tetracycline molecule attaches to the small ribosomal subunit and prevents binding of the tRNA anticodon during initiation. Both eukaryotic and prokaryotic ribosomes are sensitive to the action of tetracycline, but this antibiotic cannot pass through the plasma membrane of eukaryotic cells. Because tetracycline can enter bacterial cells to inhibit protein synthesis, it will stop bacterial growth, helping the immune system fight the infection. Streptomycin is used in hospitals to treat serious bacterial infections. It binds to the small ribosomal subunit but does not prevent initiation or elongation; however, it does affect the efficiency of protein synthesis. Binding of streptomycin changes the way mRNA codons interact with the tRNA. As a result, incorrect amino acids are incorporated into the growing polypeptide chain, producing nonfunctional proteins. In addition, streptomycin causes the ribosome to randomly fall off the mRNA, preventing the synthesis of complete proteins. Puromycin is not used clinically but has played an important role in studying the mechanism of protein synthesis in the research laboratory. The puromycin molecule is the same size and shape as a tRNA/amino acid complex. When puromycin enters the ribosome, it can be incorporated into a growing polypeptide chain, stopping further synthesis because no peptide bond can be formed between puromycin and an amino acid, causing the shortened polypeptide to fall off the ribosome. Chloramphenicol was one of the first broadspectrum antibiotics introduced. Eukaryotic cells are resistant to its actions, and it was widely used to treat bacterial infections. However, its use is limited to external applications and serious infections. Chloramphenicol destroys cells in the bone marrow, the source of all blood cells. In bacteria, this antibiotic binds to the large ribosomal subunit and inhibits the formation of peptide bonds. Another antibiotic, erythromycin, also binds to the large ribosomal subunit and inhibits the movement of ribosomes along the mRNA. Almost every step of protein synthesis can be inhibited by one antibiotic or another. Work on designing new synthetic antibiotics to fight infections is based on our knowledge of how the nucleotide sequence of mRNA is converted into the amino acid sequence of a protein. Questions Why is targeting protein synthesis an effective strategy for preventing infection?
The following is a portion of a protein: met-trp-tyr-arg-gly-pro-thr-Various mutant forms of this protein have been recovered. Using the normal and mutant sequences, determine the DNA and mRNA sequences that code for this portion of the protein, and explain each of the mutations. a. met-trp- b. met-cys-ile-val-val-leu-gln- c. met-trp-tyr-arg-ser-pro-thr- d. met-trp-tyr-arg-gly-ala-val-ile-ser-pro-thr-
You are in charge of a new gene therapy clinic. Two cases have been referred to you for review and possible therapy. Case 1. A mutation in the promoter of a proto-oncogene causes the gene to make too much of its normal product, a receptor protein that promotes cell division. The uncontrolled cell division has caused cancer. Case 2. A mutation in an exon of a tumor-suppressor gene makes this gene nonfunctional. The product of this gene normally suppresses cell division. The mutant gene cannot suppress cell division, and this has led to cancer. What treatment options can you suggest for each case?
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?
One treatment for peanut allergies is to give an allergic child increasing doses of the peanut allergen proteins, starting at a very low level and progressing to higher concentrations, stopping if any reaction occurs. Such treatments are usually successful, but at least one death has been reported. Would you agree to treat your allergic child this way? What are the risk-benefit considerations?
What is the difference between a proto-oncogene and a tumor-suppressor gene?