Scribd
Upload
80 views2 pages

Week 9 DNA Replication and cDNA Worksheet

1. Meselson and Stahl devised an experiment in 1958 to test different models of DNA replication. They grew bacteria in solutions containing different nitrogen isotopes and analyzed the DNA through centrifugation. 2. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that human genes cannot be patented, ending Myriad Genetics' monopoly on BRCA1 gene testing. The Court ruled that isolated genes cannot be patented but cDNA can be. 3. In a hypothetical new case, a judge must decide if a company's cDNA patent is infringed by another researcher's synthetic DNA that codes for the same peptide sequence. The judge would rule in favor of the cDNA patent holder, finding the synthetic DNA to be infringing.

Uploaded by

BANAN GARADA
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
80 views2 pages

Week 9 DNA Replication and cDNA Worksheet

1. Meselson and Stahl devised an experiment in 1958 to test different models of DNA replication. They grew bacteria in solutions containing different nitrogen isotopes and analyzed the DNA through centrifugation. 2. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that human genes cannot be patented, ending Myriad Genetics' monopoly on BRCA1 gene testing. The Court ruled that isolated genes cannot be patented but cDNA can be. 3. In a hypothetical new case, a judge must decide if a company's cDNA patent is infringed by another researcher's synthetic DNA that codes for the same peptide sequence. The judge would rule in favor of the cDNA patent holder, finding the synthetic DNA to be infringing.

Uploaded by

BANAN GARADA
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Name ____________________________________

LS7A Week 9 – Review of DNA Replication and cDNA


Part 1. The “Most Beautiful Experiment in Biology”
In class you learned all about the mechanism of DNA
replication. This information has come from decades
of scientific research. In the 1950s, scientists knew
very little about DNA beyond its chemical structure.
They proposed three different models for how DNA
replication occurred: dispersive, semiconservative,
and conservative.

To tests these hypotheses, Matt Meselson and Frank


Stahl devised and conducted an experiment in 1958.
They grew bacteria in a solution containing a heavy
isotope of nitrogen (15N) that was incorporated into
the bacteria’s DNA. After some time, they transferred
the bacteria to a new solution containing a light
isotope of nitrogen (14N) that was incorporated into
any newly synthesized DNA.

At any point during the experiment, Meselson and


Stahl could isolate the DNA from the bacteria and use
a technique called centrifugation to separate the DNA
strands by their molecular weight. DNA containing
heavy nitrogen (15N) had a greater mass than DNA
containing light nitrogen (14N).
Part 2. DNA and Society
In 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 9-0 that human genes cannot be patented. This
landmark decision ended Myriad Genetics’ monopoly on BRCA1 gene testing, making future BRCA1 genetic
testing for breast cancer screening much more affordable for patients. Your TA will give your group an excerpt
from the Supreme Court’s opinion in this case. Read the excerpt and use it to answer the questions below.

1. The Supreme Court ruled that a gene isolated from human DNA cannot be patented, but that cDNA of a
gene can be patented. Based on their argument in the excerpt provided, do you agree with this ruling? Why or
why not? Be sure to define the term “cDNA” in your answer.

Define cDNA:
cDNA is complementary DNA that as the government rulings suggest, is not naturally
occurring. It does not contain sections of non protein coding dna, otherwise it has the same
protein coding information found in natural dna.

Do you agree or disagree with the ruling? Why?


I do not agree with this ruling, because seeing how the cDNA is produced still by creation,
I would not define it as "not naturally occurring". Further, as included in the opinion article,
the sequence to which cDNA is found in is dictated by nature, not by man. However the
results of how to manipulate this cDNA can be dictated by human, as it stands cDNA is not a synthesis proje

2. You are a judge and a new case comes to your court. The
company PseudoGene has patented a cDNA for a small peptide
drug. Dr. Genius has created her own synthetic DNA molecule.
PseudoGene claims that she is infringing on their cDNA patent,
but Dr. Genius claims that her synthetic DNA is different. The
open reading frames of their cDNA and synthetic DNA molecules
are shown below. Considering the precedent established by the
Supreme Court ruling above and the amino acid sequences
produced by these DNA molecules, would you rule in favor of
PseudoGene or Dr. Genius? Please explain your reasoning.
PseudoGene’s cDNA: 5’-ATGCGTAGCTTATCCTAG-3’
Dr. Genius’s synthetic DNA: 5’-ATGAGGTCTCTGAGTTGA-3’
(Note: the non-template strand is shown for both DNA molecules)

Amino acid sequences of peptides produced from PseudoGene’s cDNA and Dr. Genius’s synthetic DNA:
Pseudo, Met, Arg, Ser, Leu, Ser, stop
Dr. G, Met, Arg, Ser, Leu, Ser, stop They are the same.

Would you rule in favor of PseudoGene or Dr. Genius? Why?


I would rule in favor of PseudoGene, further, that Dr. Genius may be infringing on PseudoGene's
patent because the two DNA sequences, cDNA and the synthetic DNA,
ultimately code for the same amino acid sequences.

You might also like