Answered: What marker proteins does BRCA1…

Science

Biology

What marker proteins does BRCA1 directly and indirectly interact with ? Is RAD51 and p53 a marker protein ?

Basic Clinical Laboratory Techniques 6E

6th Edition

ISBN:9781133893943

Author:ESTRIDGE

Publisher:ESTRIDGE

Chapter3: Basic Hemostasis

Section3.6: D-dimers

Problem 6RQ

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

What are the roles of cellular proto-oncogenes, and how are these roles consistent with their implication in oncogenesis?
Figure 10.14 Human papillomavirus can cause cervical cancer. The virus encodes E6, a protein that binds p53. Based on this fact and what you know about p53, what effect do you think E6 binding has on p53 activity? E6 activates p53 E6 inactivates p53 E6 mutates p53 E6 binding marks p53 for degradation
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?
A region on chromosome 6 has been linked to schizophrenia, but researchers have not found a specific gene associated with this disease. What steps would be necessary to locate the gene?
Which of the following mutations will result in cancer? a. homozygous recessive mutation in a tumor-suppressor gene coding for a nonfunctional protein b. dominant mutation in a tumor-suppressor gene in which the normal protein product is overexpressed c. homozygous recessive mutation in which there is a deletion in the coding region of a proto-oncogene, leaving it nonfunctional d. dominant mutation in a proto-oncogene in which the normal protein product is overexpressed
List the regulatory mechanisms that might be lost in a cell producing faulty p53.
Equalizing the Expression of X Chromosome Genes in Males and Females Males have only one X chromosome and therefore only one copy of all genes on the X chromosome. Each gene is directly expressed, thus providing the basis of hemizygosity in males. Females have two X chromosomes, but one is always inactivated. Therefore, females, like males, have only one functional copy of all the genes on the X chromosome. Again, each gene must be directly expressed. Why, then, are females not considered hemizygous, and why are they not afflicted with sex-linked recessive diseases as often as males are?
How does NF-kB induce gene expression? A small, hydrophobic ligand binds to NF-kB, activating it. Phosphorylation of the inhibitor Ik-B dissociates the complex between it and NF- kB, and allows NF-kB to enter the nucleus and stimulate transcription. NF-kB is phosphorylated and is then free to enter the nucleus and bind DNA. NF-kB is a kinase that phosphorylates a transcription factor that binds DNA and promotes protein production.
Explain why it was essential that Mendel perform his crosses using a large sample size?
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?
Describe the general conditions that must be met at each of the three main cell-cycle checkpoints.