antibody diversity is generated principally through ? (a) exposure to environmental mutagens (b) targeted DNA amplification (c) RNA-dependant DNA synthesis (d) DNA rearrangement (e) decoding errors and ribosomal frameshifting

antibody diversity is generated principally through ? (a) exposure to environmental mutagens (b) targeted DNA amplification (c) RNA-dependant DNA synthesis (d) DNA rearrangement (e) decoding errors and ribosomal frameshifting

Human Heredity: Principles and Issues (MindTap Course List)

11th Edition

ISBN:9781305251052

Author:Michael Cummings

Publisher:Michael Cummings

Chapter17: Genes And The Immune System

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 10QP: The Adaptive Immune Response Is a Specific Defense Against Infection Researchers have been having a...

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

genetics question 3. Explain how accurate direct-to-consumer test kits are for identifying BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations? If you had a positive result, how would you interpret this result and what steps might you take next?
The Adaptive Immune Response Is a Specific Defense Against Infection Researchers have been having a difficult time developing a vaccine against a certain pathogenic virus as a result of the lack of a weakened strain. They turn to you because of your wide knowledge of recombinant DNA technology and the immune system. How could you vaccinate someone against the virus, using a cloned gene from the virus that encodes a cell-surface protein?
using a molecular genetic approach how can one generate a mouse missing an adaptive immune response
Nanotechnology can provide alternatives to early detection of cancer cells, drug delivery, and injectable vaccines that to this day rely on healthcare professionals to administer What are 3 Cost and 3 Benefits of this?
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?
Biology Suppose your friend claims there is a human enhancer at position 1,030,302 of chromosome 1. You run a Hi-C assay on retinal cells, and find no evidence of any physical interactions between that candidate enhancer and any other location in the genome. Can you safely conclude the enhancer does not exist?
Your group is a team of transplantation doctors who are treating a patient who received a kidney transplant. What is the biological basis for attempting to use Betalacept (soluble CTLA-4-Fc fusion protein) to prevent allograft rejection?
Hybridoma technology allows one to generatemonoclonal antibodies to virtually any protein. Why isit, then, that genetically tagging proteins with epitopes issuch a commonly used technique, especially since an epi-tope tag has the potential to interfere with the function ofthe protein?
If you were in charge of protecting citizens from a bioterrorism attack, what biotechnology strategies would you consider for monitoring infectious agents? Do you think that vaccination against a bioweapon such as the Variola vaccinia virus, which causes smallpox, should be mandatory for all citizens even if the vaccine causes life-threatening side effects in some people?
Are all pluripotent stem cells created equal, however?
2) Now you would like to raise antibodies to this protein of YFG. How could you use the pure protein to generate/identify….. a) a polyclonal antibody? b) a monoclonal antibody?