Answered: . WHAT IF? Suppose that you sample the…

. WHAT IF? Suppose that you sample the DNA of twomushrooms on opposite sides of your yard and find thatthey are identical. Propose two hypotheses that couldreasonably account for this result.

Human Heredity: Principles and Issues (MindTap Course List)

11th Edition

ISBN:9781305251052

Author:Michael Cummings

Publisher:Michael Cummings

Chapter19: Population Genetics And Human Evolution

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 24QP

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

WHAT IF? Stechmann and Cavalier-Smith wrote that their conclusions are“valid only if the genes fused just once and were never secondarily split.” Whyis this assumption critical to their approach?
Yes or no? during situ hybridization digoxygenin can be recognized by antibody. Does pcr generate linear moleyof dna? in situ hybridization reveals distribution of a gene's mrna in an organism.
WHAT IF? Would you expect the plastid DNA of photosynthetic dinoflagellates, diatoms, and golden algaeto be more similar to the nuclear DNA of plants (domainEukarya) or to the chromosomal DNA of cyanobacteria(domain Bacteria)? Explain.
1. Compare the sugar-phosphate arrangement in the backbone of the DNA from the plant, the mammal and the bacterium. Are there any differences? 2. Which bases are present in the DNA of the plant? The mammal? The bacterium? Are the same bases present in all three cases? Are the bases in the same order?
1. Describe the pattern of base pair matching for the two strands in the plant's DNA. In other words, which types of bases are paired together? Does the DNA from the mammal follow the same base-pairing rule as the DNA from the plant? Is base-pairing the same or different in the DNA of the bacterium? 2. Which characteristics are similar in the DNA of plants, mammals, and bacteria? What is the only characteristic that differs between these segments of DNA from a plant, a mammal and a bacterium?
Can DNA profiling identify the source of a sample with absolute certainty? Because any two human genomes differ at about 3 million sites, no two persons (except identical twins) have the same DNA sequence. Unique identification with DNA profiling is therefore possible if enough sites of variation are examined. However, the systems used today examine only a few sites of variation. Nonetheless, even with todays technology, which uses three to five loci, a match between two DNA patterns can be considered strong evidence that the two samples came from the same source. DNA profiling in criminal cases has been a useful tool in establishing both guilt and innocence. Originally, DNA databases contained only the profiles of convicted felons. Over time, however, law enforcement agencies have expanded the collection and use of DNA profiles, and these new policies are causing controversies, once again illustrating how the availability and use of genetic technology is often ahead of consensus on how and when this technology should be used. One of these new policies is postarrest DNA collection. At this writing, 18 U.S. states as well as the federal government allow the collection of DNA samples after an arrest but before conviction. These profiles become part of the states DNA database, which is often searched for evidence in cold cases. Courts across the country have ruled for and against the use of such samples. In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the collection of DNA samples from someone who has been arrested but not convicted is unconstitutional and violates an individuals right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The case began when a DNA sample was taken from Alonzo Jay King, Jr., who was arrested in 2009 for assault. In a database search, the DNA profile matched that taken from a 2003 unsolved rape. Based on the results of the database search, the man was sentenced to life in prison. The rape conviction was reversed, and the case was sent back to a lower court. As a result, some 16,000 DNA profiles collected postarrest but preconviction since 2009 cannot be used pending appeal of this decision. Before the court decision, postarrest DNA profiles were used in 65 arrests that resulted in 34 convictions, with an additional 12 cases pending. Supporters of postarrest DNA profiling claim that taking a DNA sample by a cheek swab is noninvasive and no different from taking someones fingerprints. Opponents claim that because DNA samples can be used to determine much more than a DNA profile, they are a threat to privacy, and that because minorities are more likely to be arrested, the practice is discriminatory. What if you learned that law enforcement officials were saving the DNA sample for use in tests that might be developed in the future?
Can DNA profiling identify the source of a sample with absolute certainty? Because any two human genomes differ at about 3 million sites, no two persons (except identical twins) have the same DNA sequence. Unique identification with DNA profiling is therefore possible if enough sites of variation are examined. However, the systems used today examine only a few sites of variation. Nonetheless, even with todays technology, which uses three to five loci, a match between two DNA patterns can be considered strong evidence that the two samples came from the same source. DNA profiling in criminal cases has been a useful tool in establishing both guilt and innocence. Originally, DNA databases contained only the profiles of convicted felons. Over time, however, law enforcement agencies have expanded the collection and use of DNA profiles, and these new policies are causing controversies, once again illustrating how the availability and use of genetic technology is often ahead of consensus on how and when this technology should be used. One of these new policies is postarrest DNA collection. At this writing, 18 U.S. states as well as the federal government allow the collection of DNA samples after an arrest but before conviction. These profiles become part of the states DNA database, which is often searched for evidence in cold cases. Courts across the country have ruled for and against the use of such samples. In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the collection of DNA samples from someone who has been arrested but not convicted is unconstitutional and violates an individuals right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The case began when a DNA sample was taken from Alonzo Jay King, Jr., who was arrested in 2009 for assault. In a database search, the DNA profile matched that taken from a 2003 unsolved rape. Based on the results of the database search, the man was sentenced to life in prison. The rape conviction was reversed, and the case was sent back to a lower court. As a result, some 16,000 DNA profiles collected postarrest but preconviction since 2009 cannot be used pending appeal of this decision. Before the court decision, postarrest DNA profiles were used in 65 arrests that resulted in 34 convictions, with an additional 12 cases pending. Supporters of postarrest DNA profiling claim that taking a DNA sample by a cheek swab is noninvasive and no different from taking someones fingerprints. Opponents claim that because DNA samples can be used to determine much more than a DNA profile, they are a threat to privacy, and that because minorities are more likely to be arrested, the practice is discriminatory. Would you object if you were arrested for a minor offense, such as a traffic violation, and ordered to provide a DNA sample?
Can DNA profiling identify the source of a sample with absolute certainty? Because any two human genomes differ at about 3 million sites, no two persons (except identical twins) have the same DNA sequence. Unique identification with DNA profiling is therefore possible if enough sites of variation are examined. However, the systems used today examine only a few sites of variation. Nonetheless, even with todays technology, which uses three to five loci, a match between two DNA patterns can be considered strong evidence that the two samples came from the same source. DNA profiling in criminal cases has been a useful tool in establishing both guilt and innocence. Originally, DNA databases contained only the profiles of convicted felons. Over time, however, law enforcement agencies have expanded the collection and use of DNA profiles, and these new policies are causing controversies, once again illustrating how the availability and use of genetic technology is often ahead of consensus on how and when this technology should be used. One of these new policies is postarrest DNA collection. At this writing, 18 U.S. states as well as the federal government allow the collection of DNA samples after an arrest but before conviction. These profiles become part of the states DNA database, which is often searched for evidence in cold cases. Courts across the country have ruled for and against the use of such samples. In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the collection of DNA samples from someone who has been arrested but not convicted is unconstitutional and violates an individuals right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The case began when a DNA sample was taken from Alonzo Jay King, Jr., who was arrested in 2009 for assault. In a database search, the DNA profile matched that taken from a 2003 unsolved rape. Based on the results of the database search, the man was sentenced to life in prison. The rape conviction was reversed, and the case was sent back to a lower court. As a result, some 16,000 DNA profiles collected postarrest but preconviction since 2009 cannot be used pending appeal of this decision. Before the court decision, postarrest DNA profiles were used in 65 arrests that resulted in 34 convictions, with an additional 12 cases pending. Supporters of postarrest DNA profiling claim that taking a DNA sample by a cheek swab is noninvasive and no different from taking someones fingerprints. Opponents claim that because DNA samples can be used to determine much more than a DNA profile, they are a threat to privacy, and that because minorities are more likely to be arrested, the practice is discriminatory. What are your thoughts on the collection and use of postarrest DNA profiles?
. SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY The scientists mapping the SNPs inthe human genome noticed that groups of SNPs tended to beinherited together, in blocks known as haplotypes, ranging inlength from 5,000 to 200,000 base pairs. There are as few as fouror five commonly occurring combinations of SNPs per haplotype.Integrating what you’ve learned throughout this chapter and thisunit, propose an explanation for this observation
Fill in the gaps? Some bioinformatic tools are more specialized/differed than others. For instance .......... is commonly used for searching or analysis of sequence or identity; some others are used for search out ............ in given data.
3. Now that the sequence of the entire E. coli K12 straingenome (roughly 5 Mb) is known, you can determineexactly where a cloned fragment of DNA came fromin the genome by sequencing a few bases and matching that data with genomic information.a. About how many nucleotides of sequence information would you need to determine exactly where afragment is from?b. If you had purified a protein from E. coli cells,roughly how many amino acids of that proteinwould you need to know to establish which geneencoded the protein?c. You determine 100 nucleotides of sequence ofgenomic DNA from a different E. coli strain, butyou cannot find a match in the E. coli K12 genomesequence. How is this possible?
Yes or no? DAPI just stains dna in testes and sperm of planarian. A of riboprobe duryin situ hybridization pair with T's in mrna . T with A, cwith G and G with C. in forward genetics phenotype is known before the gene mutation and in reverse genetics the altered gene is known before phenotype