Answered: The genes in your lung cells can also…

Science

Biology

The genes in your lung cells can also be found in your muscle cells. True False

BIOLOGY:CONCEPTS+APPL.(LOOSELEAF)

10th Edition

ISBN:9781305967359

Author:STARR

Publisher:STARR

Chapter10: Control Of Gene Expression

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 14SA: True or false? Gene expression patterns can be inherited.

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

The photos below show flowers from two Arabidopsis plants. One plant is wild-type unmutated; the other carries a mutation in one of its ABC floral identity genes. This mutation causes sepals and petals to form instead of stamens and carpels. Refer to Figure 10.7 to decide which gene A, B, or C has been inactivated by the mutation.
The cystic fibrosis gene encodes a chloride channel protein necessary for normal cellular functions. Let us assume that if at least 5% normal channels are present, the affected individual has mild symptoms of cystic fibrosis. Having less than 5% normal channels produces severe symptoms. At least 50% of the channels must be expressed for the individual to be phenotypically normal. This gene has various mutant recessive alleles: Predict the percent of functional channels and severity of symptoms for the following genotypes: a. heterozygous for CF100 b. homozygous for CF100 c. heterozygous, with one copy of CF100 and one of CF3 d. heterozygous, with one copy of CF1 and one copy of CF3
Muscle cells differ from bone cells because ________. a. they carry different genes b. they use different genes c. both a and b
The photos above show flowers from Arabidopsis plants. One plant is wild-type (unmutated); the other carries a mutation in one of its ABC floral identity genes. This mutation causes sepals and petals to form instead of stamens and carpels. Refer to Figure 10.8 to decide which gene (A, B, or C) has been inactivated by the mutation.
The gene controlling ABO blood type and the gene underlying nail-patella syndrome are said to show linkage. What does that mean in terms of their relative locations in the genome? What does it mean in terms of how the two traits are inherited with respect to each other?
True or false? Some humans are genetically modified.
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 search for the BRCA1 breast cancer gene discussed in this chapter was widely publicized in the media (for example, Newsweek, December 6, 1993). Describe the steps taken by Mary-Claire King and her colleagues to clone this gene. How long did this process take?
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.
We each carry 20,000 genes in our genome. Genes can be patented, and over 6,000 human genes have been patented. Do you think that companies or individuals should be able to patent human genes? Why or why not?
Neanderthal Hair Color The MC1R gene regulates pigmentation in humans (Sections 14.1 and 15.1 revisited), so loss-of-function mutations in this gene affect hair and skin color. A person with two mutated alleles for this gene makes more of the reddish melanin than the brownish melanin, resulting in red hair and pale skin. DNA extracted from two Neanderthal fossils contains a mutated MC1R allele that has not yet been found in humans. To see how the Neanderthal mutation affects the function of the MC1R gene. Carles Lalueza-Fox and her team introduced the allele into cultured monkey cells (FIGURE 26.16). FIGURE 26.16 MC1R activity in monkey cells transgenic for an unmutated MC1R gene, the Neanderthal MC1R allele, or the gene for green fluorescent protein (GFP). GFP is not related to MC1R. 1. How did MCR1 activity in monkey cells with the mutant allele differ from that in cells with the normal allele?