I: What Is the Genome Project?

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

I: What Is the Genome Project? Mapping the Genome exons, and noncoding regions, or introns. I: 71/)iatLi the We’re making progress, but the problems are still unsolved. On the other hand, most participants at the 1986 meeting e !13t9ject? agreed that a major effort in genetic and !2m physical mapping was appropriate, That conclusion was confirmed by the report, published in 1987, of the DOE’s Health Bob Moyzis: This discussion is meant to Now many of us, including me, thought and Environment Research Advisory address scientists. particularly physical the straight sequencing approach was Committee. Many individuals with scientists, who know very little about crazy because it ignores biology. Yes, a physical-science background do not the Human Genome Project and may we can read the sequence, pick out understand that a DNA sequence with our have many misconceptions about it. a gene, and use the genetic code to a genetic map is nearly useless. Let’s share our perceptions of how this translate the coding regions of the gene project got started. Why are we doing into the sequence of amino acids that David Botstein: Most of us were it, and why did the idea of taking on composes the protein. But then we run unaware of the DOE workshop and the entire human genome gain support into a big problem: How do we know report, but the idea of understanding in the scientific community? what the protein does? At present we the human genome stirred LLpso much have no way to determine the function of interest that the National Research David Botstein: The answers are a protein from its amino-acid sequence Council organized its own comtnittee complicated because the human genome alone. Wally Gilbert likes to say that to assess the feasibility of the Project. is largely unexplored territory. It’s if we had a catalog of all the protein Some members of that committee are tremendously information-rich, and amino-acid sequences, we would be here—Maynard Olson, Lee Hood, and differenl people have had different able to deduce protein functions. Some I. We independently recommended ideas about the best way to go about day we may get there, but right now that the Human Genome Project go finding out what’s there. The initial that’s science fiction, not science. ahead—but, as Bob pointed out, in an proponents of the Genome Project, entirely different manner than originally especially Charles DeLisi in the De- Bob Moyzis: Interpreting protein func- proposed. We said, “Let’s postpone partment of Energy [DOE], said, “The tion is a problem. But the straight se- sequencing the genome until we develop human genome is the blueprint for the quencing approach, as initially proposed, better sequencing technology and focus development of a single fertilized egg, presented other serious difficulties. on developing the tools, the genetic and into a complex organism of more than First and foremost, the technology to physical maps, needed to interpret the 10[3 cells. The blueprint is written in a sequence the whole genome was just not sequence once we have it. Let’s build coded message given by the sequence of available. That was the conclusion of some biology into this effort. ” nucleotide bases—the As, Cs, Gs, and Ts the human genome workshop sponsored that are strung along the DNA molecules by the DOE in 1986 in Santa Fe, New Bob Moyzis: But we still have a in the genome. So let’s read the entire Mexico, and it is true today. We’re problem of perception in the scientific sequence from one end to the other, not too bad at reading stretches of DNA community. The conclusion of every put the whole thing in a computer, and 10,000 bases long—the average length of meeting and report on the Human give it to the theoreticians and computer a gene—but present technologies are still Genome Project has been that the goal is analysts to decode the instructions. ” too labor-intensive and too expensive notto immediately sequence the entire And what instructions does the human to think of sequencing the 6 billion human genome. That idea died an early genome contain’? Everyone who has bases in the human genome. However, death. But every negative report about taken high-school biology knows that the technology is changing rapidly, a the Project says that we are going to be DNA contains genes, that genes are the point we’ll return to later. We’re also doing this mindless sequencing. coded messages for making proteins, not certain how to pick out the genes and that proteins carry out all of the from all the other DNA sequences in Maynard Olson: Critics often do not functions of an organism. So why not the genome or how to sepamte the gene take the time to understand what they begin by reading the sequence’? sequences into protein-coding regions, or are criticizing. 71 Mapping the Genome Norton Zinder: I’d like to go back to genetic traits, which are the unseen an earlier point, that different people messages in the genetic material, In the are interested in different aspects of the case of humans, looking for Mendelian genome. The most ambitious interest patterns of inheritance is often the is a very long-term goal-to understand only method we have for connecting the whole blueprint. But there’s a large phenotype with genotype. group of people, and maybe they ‘re in the majority, who are more practical. Bob Moyzis: Mendel’s laws apply only They are interested in understanding to discrete variable traits-for example human disease, and they support the having or not having unusually short Genome Project because the maps that fingers, a trait called brachydactyly. will be developed are just tbe tools Because those traits [normal or short needed to find the genes responsible digits] are inherited according to the for inherited diseases, Victor McKusick ratios predicted by Mendel, geneticists has compiled a catalog of over 4000 can infer a number of things. First, thaf such diseases and many of them are digit length is determined by a single pair *vo/.toll”Zill[[cl Mendelian, which means that they of genes, one inherited from each parent, Until recently people are each caused by a single mutant and second that the brachydactyly gene gene. People are very excited about the has two versions, or alleles, say A and tried to guess which prospect of finding those genes. a, where A is the rare dominant allele protein from among the that causes the anomalous digit length. Bob Moyzis: It’s ironic that the genetic- tens of thousands of mapping community had little to do, I Most variable traits are not Mendelian. human proteins was feel, with initiating the Human Genome They result from the complex interaction Project, recent books documenting the of many genes. On the other hand, many produced by the mutant history of this project notwithstanding. inherited diseases are the result of a sin gene . the new Once the Project gained momentum, gle mutant gene. How do we determine however, it was clear that the human that? We can ‘t do contro[leci-breed ing approach is to avoid genetic-mapping community would be experiments and analyze thousands of playing around with lots a primary user of the maps, particularly offspring as Mendel did. But if we trace in the search for the genes causing the disease through the generations of of proteins and instead the Mendelian diseases that Norton fdmilies affected by the disease, we can to find the responsible just mentioned. Our audience may use statistical analysis to infer from a be surprised to learn that the method relatively small sample whether a single gene in the DNA. used to infer that a single gene is the gene-pair is involved, and if so, whether cause of an inherited disease goes all the mutant gene, the allele that causes the way back to Mendel. Despite all the disease, is dominant or recessive, the advances we’ve made in molecular [For a discussion of Mendel’s laws, see genetics, Mendel’s laws and his indirect “Understanding Inheritance.”] methods of inference still provide the basic methods for much of what is done Norton Zinder: Yes, but how do we in genetics. go further toward understanding the disease? Until recently people tried to David Botstein: Mendel identified the guess which protein from among the basic unit, the quantum, of heredity, tens of thousands of human proteins was which is the gene. Mendel’s laws are produced by the mutant gene. They the quantum mechanics of genetics. would use various biochemical and They provide a quantitative link between cytological methods to compare normal physical traits, the traits we see, and and disease-affected tissues, but often LOs Almrw.j Scicncr h-uimher 20 I99.2 Mapping the Genome the dise~se gives no clue as to what the combinations of the two tmits in proteins might be involved. The new the offspring tell us whether or not approach is to avoid playing around the two gene pairs are on the same with lots of’ proteins and instead to chromosome pair. [See “Classical find the responsible gene in the DNA, Linkage Mapping,”] sequence the gene, determine its protein product, and then try to determine what The interesting thing is that some frac- the protein does. tion of the time the alleles—particular forms of the two genes-on a given How do we find the gene responsible chromosome are nor co-inherited. How for a Wndelian trait? Until 1980 we do they break apart? During the forma- had no practical method.
Recommended publications
  • Applied Category Theory for Genomics – an Initiative
    Applied Category Theory for Genomics { An Initiative Yanying Wu1,2 1Centre for Neural Circuits and Behaviour, University of Oxford, UK 2Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, UK 06 Sept, 2020 Abstract The ultimate secret of all lives on earth is hidden in their genomes { a totality of DNA sequences. We currently know the whole genome sequence of many organisms, while our understanding of the genome architecture on a systematic level remains rudimentary. Applied category theory opens a promising way to integrate the humongous amount of heterogeneous informations in genomics, to advance our knowledge regarding genome organization, and to provide us with a deep and holistic view of our own genomes. In this work we explain why applied category theory carries such a hope, and we move on to show how it could actually do so, albeit in baby steps. The manuscript intends to be readable to both mathematicians and biologists, therefore no prior knowledge is required from either side. arXiv:2009.02822v1 [q-bio.GN] 6 Sep 2020 1 Introduction DNA, the genetic material of all living beings on this planet, holds the secret of life. The complete set of DNA sequences in an organism constitutes its genome { the blueprint and instruction manual of that organism, be it a human or fly [1]. Therefore, genomics, which studies the contents and meaning of genomes, has been standing in the central stage of scientific research since its birth. The twentieth century witnessed three milestones of genomics research [1]. It began with the discovery of Mendel's laws of inheritance [2], sparked a climax in the middle with the reveal of DNA double helix structure [3], and ended with the accomplishment of a first draft of complete human genome sequences [4].
    [Show full text]
  • Masthead (PDF)
    Proceedings of the National Academy ofPNAS Sciences of the United States of America www.pnas.org PRESIDENT OF Robert G. Roeder Geophysics John J. Mekalanos THE ACADEMY Michael Rosbash Michael L. Bender Peter Palese Ralph J. Cicerone David D. Sabatini Thomas E. Shenk Gertrud M. Schupbach Human Environmental Thomas J. Silhavy SENIOR EDITOR Robert Tjian Sciences Peter K. Vogt Solomon H. Snyder Susan Hanson Cellular and Molecular Physics ASSOCIATE EDITORS Neuroscience Immunology Anthony Leggett William C. Clark Pietro V. De Camilli Peter Cresswell Paul C. Martin Alan Fersht Richard L. Huganir Douglas T. Fearon Jack Halpern L. L. Iversen Richard A. Flavell Physiology and Jeremy Nathans Charles F. Stevens Dan R. Littman Pharmacology Thomas C. Su¨dhof Tak Wah Mak Susan G. Amara Joseph S. Takahashi William E. Paul David Julius EDITORIAL BOARD Hans Thoenen Michael Sela Ramon Latorre Ralph M. Steinman Masashi Yanagisawa Animal, Nutritional, and Chemistry Applied Microbial Sciences Stephen J. Benkovic Mathematics Plant Biology David L. Denlinger Bruce J. Berne Richard V. Kadison Maarten J. Chrispeels R. Michael Roberts Harry B. Gray Robion C. Kirby Enrico Coen Robert Haselkorn Linda J. Saif Mark A. Ratner George H. Lorimer Ryuzo Yanagimachi Barry M. Trost Medical Genetics, Hematology, and Nicholas J. Turro Anthropology Oncology Plant, Soil, and Charles T. Esmon Microbial Sciences Jeremy A. Sabloff Computer and Joseph L. Goldstein Roger N. Beachy Information Sciences Mark T. Groudine Steven E. Lindow Applied Mathematical Sciences Shafrira Goldwasser David O. Siegmund Tony Hunter M. S. Swaminathan Philip W. Majerus Susan R. Wessler Economic Sciences Newton E. Morton Applied Physical Sciences Ronald W.
    [Show full text]
  • B. Sample Multiple Choice Questions 1
    Genetics Review B. Sample Multiple Choice Questions 1. A represents the dominant allele and a represents the recessive allele of a pair. If, in 1000 offspring, 500 are aa and 500 are of some other genotype, which of the following are most probably the genotypes of the parents? a. Aa and Aa b. Aa and aa c. AA and Aa d. AA and aa e. aa and aa 2. A form of vitamin D-resistant rickets, known as hypophosphatemia, is inherited as an X-linked dominant trait. If a male with hypophosphatemia marries a normal female, which of the following predictions concerning their potential progeny would be true? a. All of their sons would inherit the disease b. All of their daughters would inherit the disease c. About 50% of their sons would inherit the disease d. About 50% of their daughters would inherit the disease e. None of their daughters would inherit the disease 3. Which of the following best describes the parents in a testcross? a. One individual has the dominant phenotype and the other has the recessive phenotype. b. Both individuals are heterozygous. c. Both individuals have the dominant phenotype. d. Both individuals have the recessive phenotype. e. Both individuals have an unknown phenotype. 4. Which of the following is the most likely explanation for a high rate of crossing-over between two genes? a. The two genes are far apart on the same chromosome. b. The two genes are both located near the centromere. c. The two genes are sex-linked. d. The two genes code for the same protein.
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE George M. Weinstock, Ph.D
    CURRICULUM VITAE George M. Weinstock, Ph.D. DATE September 26, 2014 BIRTHDATE February 6, 1949 CITIZENSHIP USA ADDRESS The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine 10 Discovery Drive Farmington, CT 06032 [email protected] phone: 860-837-2420 PRESENT POSITION Associate Director for Microbial Genomics Professor Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine UNDERGRADUATE 1966-1967 Washington University EDUCATION 1967-1970 University of Michigan 1970 B.S. (with distinction) Biophysics, Univ. Mich. GRADUATE 1970-1977 PHS Predoctoral Trainee, Dept. Biology, EDUCATION Mass. Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 1977 Ph.D., Advisor: David Botstein Thesis title: Genetic and physical studies of bacteriophage P22 genomes containing translocatable drug resistance elements. POSTDOCTORAL 1977-1980 Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biochemistry TRAINING Stanford University Medical School, Stanford, CA. Advisor: Dr. I. Robert Lehman. ACADEMIC POSITIONS/EMPLOYMENT/EXPERIENCE 1980-1981 Staff Scientist, Molec. Gen. Section, NCI-Frederick Cancer Research Facility, Frederick, MD 1981-1983 Staff Scientist, Laboratory of Genetics and Recombinant DNA, NCI-Frederick Cancer Research Facility, Frederick, MD 1981-1984 Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Catonsville, MD 1983-1984 Senior Scientist and Head, DNA Metabolism Section, Lab. Genetics and Recombinant DNA, NCI-Frederick Cancer Research Facility, Frederick, MD 1984-1990 Associate Professor with tenure (1985) Department of Biochemistry
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 NIH Director's Transformative Research Award Reviewers
    2009 NIH Director’s Transformative Research Award Reviewers Editorial Board Members Chairs David Botstein Keith Robert Yamamoto Princeton University University of California, San Francisco Members John T. Cacioppo Myron P. Gutmann University of Chicago Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research Aravinda Chakravarti Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Nola M. Hylton-Watson University of California, San Francisco Garret A. Fitzgerald Cecil B. Pickett University of Pennsylvania Biogen Idec Alfred G. Gilman Susan S. Taylor University of Texas Southwestern Medical University of California at San Diego Center Michael J. Welsh University of Iowa Mail Reviewers Craig Kendall Abbey Margaret Ashcroft University of California, Santa Barbara Division of Medicine Samuel Achilefu Richard Herbert Aster School of Medicine Blood Research Institute Manuel Ares Arleen D. Auerbach University of California Rockefeller University Bruce A. Armitage J. Thomas August Carnegie Mellon University Johns Hopkins University Mark A. Arnold Kevin A. Ault University of Iowa Emory University School of Medicine David C. Aron Jennifer Bates Averill Case Western Reserve University University of New Mexico 1 Mary Helen Barcellos-Hoff Leslie A. Bruggeman New York University School of Medicine Case Western Reserve University David P. Bartel Peter Burkhard New Cambrige Center University of Connecticut Ralf Bartenschlager Alma L. Burlingame University of Heidelberg University of California, San Francisco Rashid Bashir Frederic D. Bushman University of Illinois at Urbana – Champaign University of Pennsylvania Carl A. Batt Robert William Caldwell Cornell University Medical College of Georgia Mark T. Bedford Phil Gordon Campbell Research Division Carnegie Mellon University Kevin D. Belfield Joseph Nicholas Cappella University of Central Florida University of Pennsylvania Andrew Steven Belmont William A.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular and Cellular Biology Volume 8 May 1988 Number 5
    MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOLOGY VOLUME 8 MAY 1988 NUMBER 5 Aaron J. Shatkin, Editor in Chief(1990) Randy W. Schekman, Editor Joan A. Steitz, Editor (1990) Center for Advanced (1992) Yale University Biotechnology and Medicine University of California New Haven, Conn. Piscataway, N.J. Berkeley Robert Tjian, Editor (1991) David J. L. Luck, Editor (1992) Louis Siminovitch, Editor (1990) University of California Rockefeller University Mount Sinai Hospital Berkeley New York, N.Y. Toronto, Canada Harold E. Varmus, Editor (1989) Steven L. McKnight, Editor (1992) University of California Carnegie Institution of Washington San Francisco Baltimore, Md. EDITORIAL BOARD Frederick W. Alt (1990) Michael Green (1988) Douglas Lowy (1990) Matthew P. Scott (1989) Susan Berget (1990) Jack F. Greenblatt (1988) Paul T. Magee (1988) Fred Sherman (1988) Arnold J. Berk (1988) Leonard P. Guarente (1988) James Manley (1989) Arthur Skoultchi (1988) Alan Bernstein (1990) Christine Guthrie (1989) Janet E. Mertz (1990) Barbara Sollner-Webb (1989) Barbara K. Birshtein (1990) James E. Haber (1990) Robert L. Metzenberg (1988) Frank Solomon (1988) J. Michael Bishop (1990) Hidesaburo Hanafusa (1989) Robert K. Mortimer (1988) Karen Sprague (1989) Michael R. Botchan (1990) Leland D. Hartwell (1990) Bernardo Nadal-Ginard (1990) Pamela Stanley (1988) David Botstein (1990) Ari Helenius (1990) Paul Neiman (1989) Nat Sternberg (1989) Bruce P. Brandhorst (1990) Ira Herskowitz (1990) Joseph R. Nevins (1990) Bruce Stiliman (1988) James R. Broach (1988) James B. Hicks (1989) Carol Newlon (1988) Kevin Struhl (1989) Joan Brugge (1988) Alan Hinnebusch (1988) Mary Ann Osley (1990) Bill Sugden (1988) Mario R. Capecchi (1990) Michael J. Holland (1990) Brad Ozanne (1989) Lawrence H.
    [Show full text]
  • David Botstein 2015 Book.Pdf
    Princeton University HONORS FACULTY MEMBERS RECEIVING EMERITUS STATUS May 2015 The biographical sketches were written by colleagues in the departments of those honored. Copyright © 2015 by The Trustees of Princeton University 550275 Contents Faculty Members Receiving Emeritus Status 2015 Steven L. Bernasek .......................3 David Botstein...........................6 Erhan Çinlar ............................8 Caryl Emerson.......................... 11 Christodoulos A. Floudas ................. 15 James L. Gould ......................... 17 Edward John Groth III ...................20 Philip John Holmes ......................23 Paul R. Krugman .......................27 Bede Liu .............................. 31 Alan Eugene Mann ......................33 Joyce Carol Oates .......................36 Clarence Ernest Schutt ...................39 Lee Merrill Silver .......................41 Thomas James Trussell ...................43 Sigurd Wagner .........................46 { 1 } { 2 } David Botstein avid Botstein was educated at Harvard (A.B. 1963) and the D University of Michigan (Ph.D. 1967). He joined the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, rising through the ranks from instructor to professor of genetics. In 1987, he moved to Genentech, Inc. as vice president–science, and, in 1990, he joined Stanford University’s School of Medicine, where he was chairman of the Department of Genetics. In July, 2003 he became director of the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics and the Anthony B. Evnin ’62 Professor of Genomics at Princeton University. David’s research has centered on genetics, especially the use of genetic methods to understand biological functions. His early work in bacterial genetics contributed to the discovery of transposable elements in bacteria and an understanding of their physical structures and genetic properties. In the early 1970s, he turned to budding yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and devised novel genetic methods to study the functions of the actin and tubulin cytoskeletons.
    [Show full text]
  • 3Rd Period Allele: Alternate Forms of a Genetic Locus
    Glossary of Terms Commonly Encountered in Plant Breeding 1st Period - 3rd Period Allele: alternate forms of a genetic locus. For example, at a locus determining eye colour, an individual might have the allele for blue eyes, brown, etc. Breeding: the intentional development of new forms or varieties of plants or animals by crossing, hybridization, and selection of offspring for desirable characteristics Chromosome: the structure in the eukaryotic nucleus and in the prokaryotic cell that carries most of the DNA Cross-over: The point along the meiotic chromosome where the exchange of genetic material takes place. This structure can often be identified through a microscope Crossing-over: The reciprocal exchange of material between homologous chromosomes during meiosis, which is responsible for genetic recombination. The process involves the natural breaking of chromosomes, the exchange of chromosome pieces, and the reuniting of DNA molecules Domestication: the process by which plants are genetically modified by selection over time by humans for traits that are more desirable or advantageous for humans DNA: an abbreviation for “deoxyribose nucleic acid”, the carrier molecule of inherited genetic information Dwarfness: The genetically controlled reduction in plant height. For many crops, dwarfness, as long as it is not too extreme, is an advantage, because it means that less of the crop's energy is used for growing the stem. Instead, this energy is used for seed/fruit/tuber production. The Green Revolution wheat and rice varieties were based on dwarfing genes Emasculation: The removal of anthers from a flower before the pollen is shed. To produce F1 hybrid seed in a species bearing monoecious flowers, emasculation is necessary to remove any possibility of self-pollination Epigenetic: heritable variation caused by differences in the chemistry of either the DNA (methylation) or the proteins associated with the DNA (histone acetylation), rather than in the DNA sequence itself Gamete: The haploid cell produced by meiosis.
    [Show full text]
  • Celebrating Years of 60Science Welcome to the 60Th Anni- Versary Symposium of the Miller Institute
    Celebrating Years of 60Science Welcome to the 60th Anni- versary Symposium of the Miller Institute. In an age of ever increasing special- ization, the Miller Institute stands apart as one of the very few enterprises to embrace all of Science as its purview. For 60 years the Miller Institute has provided generous sup- port to some of the lead- ing postdoctoral fellows in all fields of science, has supported extended visits from famous scientists from around the world, and has provided critical adminis- trative and teaching relief for Berkeley faculty at par- ticularly important points in their career. This grand tradition lives on, even in the face of ever-greater challenges, with a refresh- ing emphasis on clarity in cross-discipline communi- cation. We have assembled a panel of eight luminaries drawn from past and pres- ent members of the Miller Institute each of whom leads their field with cre- ative research at the fron- tiers of human knowledge. So relax, enjoy, and be sure to ask that question that you always wanted to have answered. Jasper Rine, Professor of Genetics and Developmental Biology Chair, Miller Institute 60th 60th Anniversary Agenda Friday, January 15 – Sunday, January 17, 2016 Friday evening - Alumni House 5:00 - 7:00 Reception Saturday – Stanley Hall 8:00 - 8:45 Registration 8:45 - 9:00 Welcome 9:00 - 11:45 Maha Mahadevan: “On growth and form: geometry, physics and biology” Alice Guionnet: “About Universal Laws” Roger Bilham: “Earthquakes and Money: Frail Buildings, Philanthropic Engineers and a Few Corrupt Bad Guys
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Rpt 2004 For
    I N S T I T U T E for A D V A N C E D S T U D Y ________________________ R E P O R T F O R T H E A C A D E M I C Y E A R 2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 EINSTEIN DRIVE PRINCETON · NEW JERSEY · 08540-0631 609-734-8000 609-924-8399 (Fax) www.ias.edu Extract from the letter addressed by the Institute’s Founders, Louis Bamberger and Mrs. Felix Fuld, to the Board of Trustees, dated June 4, 1930. Newark, New Jersey. It is fundamental in our purpose, and our express desire, that in the appointments to the staff and faculty, as well as in the admission of workers and students, no account shall be taken, directly or indirectly, of race, religion, or sex. We feel strongly that the spirit characteristic of America at its noblest, above all the pursuit of higher learning, cannot admit of any conditions as to personnel other than those designed to promote the objects for which this institution is established, and particularly with no regard whatever to accidents of race, creed, or sex. TABLE OF CONTENTS 4·BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 7·FOUNDERS, TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS OF THE BOARD AND OF THE CORPORATION 10 · ADMINISTRATION 12 · PRESENT AND PAST DIRECTORS AND FACULTY 15 · REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN 20 · REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 24 · OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR - RECORD OF EVENTS 31 · ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 43 · REPORT OF THE SCHOOL OF HISTORICAL STUDIES 61 · REPORT OF THE SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICS 81 · REPORT OF THE SCHOOL OF NATURAL SCIENCES 107 · REPORT OF THE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 119 · REPORT OF THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS 139 · REPORT OF THE INSTITUTE LIBRARIES 143 · INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT 3 INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The Institute for Advanced Study was founded in 1930 with a major gift from New Jer- sey businessman and philanthropist Louis Bamberger and his sister, Mrs.
    [Show full text]
  • 12.2 Characteristics and Traits
    334 Chapter 12 | Mendel's Experiments and Heredity 12.2 | Characteristics and Traits By the end of this section, you will be able to do the following: • Explain the relationship between genotypes and phenotypes in dominant and recessive gene systems • Develop a Punnett square to calculate the expected proportions of genotypes and phenotypes in a monohybrid cross • Explain the purpose and methods of a test cross • Identify non-Mendelian inheritance patterns such as incomplete dominance, codominance, recessive lethals, multiple alleles, and sex linkage Physical characteristics are expressed through genes carried on chromosomes. The genetic makeup of peas consists of two similar, or homologous, copies of each chromosome, one from each parent. Each pair of homologous chromosomes has the same linear order of genes. In other words, peas are diploid organisms in that they have two copies of each chromosome. The same is true for many other plants and for virtually all animals. Diploid organisms produce haploid gametes, which contain one copy of each homologous chromosome that unite at fertilization to create a diploid zygote. For cases in which a single gene controls a single characteristic, a diploid organism has two genetic copies that may or may not encode the same version of that characteristic. Gene variants that arise by mutation and exist at the same relative locations on homologous chromosomes are called alleles. Mendel examined the inheritance of genes with just two allele forms, but it is common to encounter more than two alleles for any given gene in a natural population. Phenotypes and Genotypes Two alleles for a given gene in a diploid organism are expressed and interact to produce physical characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • Report and Recommendations of the Panel to Assess the Nih Investment in Research on Gene Therapy
    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PANEL TO ASSESS THE NIH INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH ON GENE THERAPY Stuart H. Orkin, M.D. Arno G. Motulsky, M.D. Co-chairs December 7, 1995 Executive Summary of Findings and Recommendations Dr. Harold Varmus, Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), appointed an ad hoc committee to assess the current status and promise of gene therapy and provide recommendations regarding future NIH-sponsored research in this area. The Panel was asked specifically to comment on how funds and efforts should be distributed among various research areas and what funding mechanisms would be most effective in meeting research goals. The Panel finds that: 1. Somatic gene therapy is a logical and natural progression in the application of fundamental biomedical science to medicine and offers extraordinary potential, in the long-term, for the management and correction of human disease, including inherited and acquired disorders, cancer, and AIDS. The concept that gene transfer might be used to treat disease is founded on the remarkable advances of the past two decades in recombinant DNA technology. The types of diseases under consideration for gene therapy are diverse; hence, many different treatment strategies are being investigated, each with its own set of scientific and clinical challenges. 2. While the expectations and the promise of gene therapy are great, clinical efficacy has not been definitively demonstrated at this time in any gene therapy protocol, despite anecdotal claims of successful therapy and the initiation of more than 100 Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC)-approved protocols. 3. Significant problems remain in all basic aspects of gene therapy.
    [Show full text]