Topic: Splicing a. What is the big picture of splicing and what is the importance of this concept in biology? b. What are the processes that are controlled or regulated or affected by this concept and why must these processes be controlled or regulated in the first place?

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-

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?

Understanding the Relevance of Chaperones in Protein Folding Protein molecules, like all molecules, can be characterized in terms of general properties such as size, shape, charge, solubility/hydrophobicity. Consider the influence of each of these general features on the likelihood of whether folding of a particular protein will require chaperone assistance or not. Be specific regarding just Hsp7O chaperones or Hsp7O chaperones and Hsp60 chaperonins.

Consequences of the Wobble Hypothesis Point out why Cricks wobble hypothesis would allow fewer than 61 anticodons to be used to translate the 61 sense codons. How might wobble tend to accelerate the rate of translation?

IS. Alternative splicing has been estimated to occur in more than 95% of multi-exon genes. Which of the following is not an evolutionary advantage of alternative splicing? Alternative splicing increases diversity without increasing genome size Different gene isoforms can be expressed in different tissues Alternative splicing creates shorter mRNA transcripts Different gene isoforms can be expressed during different stages of development.

VISUALIZE Sketch a pyrimidine nucleotide subunit that would be found only in RNA. Circle and label the three components that make up this type of nucleotide. Explain what changes in the functional groups of this subunit would have to occur for it to be found in a DNA molecule.

What processing step enhances the stability of pre-tRNAs and pre-rRNAs? methylation nucleotide modification cleavage splicing

Below is a sequence of 540 bases from a genome. What information would you use to find the beginnings and ends of open reading frames? How many open reading frames can you find in this sequence? Which open reading frame is likely to represent a protein- coding sequence, and why? Which are probably not functioning protein-coding sequences, and why? Note: for simplicitys sake, analyze only this one strand of the DNA double helix, reading from left to right, so you will only be analyzing three of the six reading frames shown in Figure 19.4.