Studying mis-splicing events on a cell-wide basis (i.e., all mis-splicing events in a cell type) can be done using:   Question 25 options:   Chromatin Immunoprecipitation (ChIP)   RNA-seq   Northern blots   qPCR   Western blots

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?

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?

Figure 15.13 Errors in splicing are implicated in cancers and other human diseases. What kinds of mutations might lead to splicing errors? Think of different possible outcomes if splicing errors occur.

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-

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?

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?

Through alternative splicing, eukaryotes (a) reinforce gene inactivation (b) prevent transcription of heterochromatin (c) produce related but different proteins in different tissues (d) amplify genes to meet the requirement of high levels of a gene product (e) bind transcription factors to enhancers to activate transcription

Match the terms with the most suitable description. ___ methylation a. makes a man out of you ___ SRY gene b. binding site for repressor ___ operator c. cells become specialized ___ Barr body d. can be epigenetic ___ differentiation e. inactivated X chromosome