The questions concerning
your paper are below. My advice is for you to try to divide them up roughly
evenly among your group members. You are even welcome to post the answers
independently if you'd like; just be sure to reiterate the questions. Please
come see me if you need help!
1. State each of
Darwin’s four postulates. Fully explain how the generation of
treatment-resistant pattern iii Neuroblastoma cells (sensu the first paragraph
of the article, page 37) meets each of the four postulates for evolution by
natural selection.
1 1. Individual variation occurs. This was represented in the clinical
variations of each neuroblastoma category
and disease pattern presented in the study. This specifically came down to the molecular profile of each tumor as variation should be assumed between any individuals whether they have Neuroblastoma or not.
· 2. Some of this variation is heritable. Neuroblastoma can be directly traced
to precursor cells of the peripheral sympathetic nervous system that have been
genetically passed on from the parental generation. This study has also shown that Neuroblastoma correlates with the arm of chromosome 1, a chromosome obviously passed on from parents to offspring.
· 3. There are more offspring produced than able to survive. Several children within a population will be born with the hereditable variation in these precursor
cells that cause Neuroblastoma while some children will not. Thus, rendering those who do inherit the variation (that has been selected for Neuroblastoma) a possibility of an early death because unfortunately not every person survives this cancer.
· 4. Natural selection acts on a population. Neuroblastoma reduces the fitness
of an individual. It changes an individuals ability to survive and reproduce in a population. Because fitness is reduced, the heritable cells that are precursors to Neuroblastoma should eventually be selected against.
2. Use the NCBI website to perform a nucleotide
BLAST on the Accession number NM_005378.4
(http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PROGRAM=blastn&BLAST_PROGRAMS=megaBlast&PAGE_TYPE=BlastSearch&SHOW_DEFAULTS=on&LINK_LOC=blasthome0).
Paste the accession number into the box, click “others” under Database, and
then hit the BLAST button. Scroll down to the Descriptions, and name five
different taxa that come up in your results. What does that tell you about this
oncogene (MYCN)?
These are five different taxa related to our search:
1. Pan troglodytes- Chimps
4763/4826
2. Pongo abelii- Orangutans
4623/4826
3. Macaca mulatta- Rhesus macaque 4538/4826
4. Nomascus leucogenys- Northern white-cheeked gibbon 3025/4826
5. Sus scrofa- Wild boar
2928/4826
The main idea that this
BLAST shows about the MYCN oncogene is that it is NOT unique to Homo sapiens. In fact there are 99
percent identical nucleotides between humans, chimps and orangutans and 98
percent identical between humans and macaques. The numbers listed above are the
exact numbers of identical nucleotides for that species in comparison to
humans. For example, a chimp has 4763 identical nucleotides to a human's 4826 nucleotides (in reference to this oncogene that is). It is also evident that even outside of the primate family, there are still 90 percent
identical nucleotides to humans as seen in the wild boar.
3. Think back to the QTL paper we discussed in class. What 4-5 general steps do quantitative geneticists take to find a candidate gene for a quantitative trait; and more specifically, what steps did these authors take to narrow down the pool of potential genes contributing to NB?
·
1.The authors first found candidates and then searched for several genetic events
as possible indicators of neuroblastoma. There genetic events were as follows: 1. allelic losses at chromosomes 1p, 11q,
14q, 9p, 9q, 2q, and 18q, 2. gains at chromosomes 17q, 18q, 1q, and 5q,
3. amplification of the oncogene MCYN, and 4. altered DNA index.
2. Next, they followed 16 microsatellite markers from chromosome 1and
performed genetic analysis of 120 NB.
· 3. The third step included studying what genes were linked to the markers. They also added additional
markers to study the more frequent gene losses past what the initial group had lost, and then did
linkage mapping.
- 4. In the fourth step they reviewed data of PCR products, compared allelic
ratios between normal heterozygous and tumor heterozygous materials to determined loss of
heterozygosity. They utilized Southern blot, quantitative PCR, or fluorescence in situ hybridization to determine copy number of MYCN and DNA index
· 5. Finally, the authors prepared statistical data for review to
determine allelic loss or no loss.
4. The authors assert
that genomic instability, whether chromosomal or molecular, leads to LOH.
Define loss of heterozygosity and explain how it can cause tumorigenesis. Keep
in mind the importance of heterozygosity to a population of organisms and apply
that logic to the importance of heterozygosity in a population of cells.
Heterozygosity is a source of variation and is
evolutionarily important to populations. The loss of heterozygosity is defined as the loss of function of
one allele when the other allele is already inactivated. In Neuroblastoma, a parental gene (tumor suppressors) that possess an
inactivated allele are passed on to the offspring. When the corresponding allele is also inactivated by a mutation within the offspring, the tumor suppressor gene can no longer be produced and therefore tumors are not suppressed. In this particular study, precursor cells of Neuroblastoma are non-suppressed so proliferation of tumorigenesis is allowed.
Bonus: Considering your interview with Dr. Mozer and this paper, please briefly describe the influence Dr. LaQuaglia has had on your project.
-Dr. Walker
Dr. Mozer was a previous personal connection of Cynthia's. It was Dr. Mozer that gave us the personal account of Neuroblastoma and the initial connection to Dr. LaQuaglia's work. From there we found Dr. LaQuaglia's research had deepened our understanding of the science behind and potential for Neuroblastoma. Thinking back on our
interview and Dr. Mozer’s comments in regard to Dr. LaQuaglia, we would say
that LaQuaglia’s indirect influence on our project could be summed up in the
word “promise”. This is because it moved our thoughts on Neuroblastoma into an “exciting
corridor of discoveries” because this is an area where Dr. LaQuaglia is not
afraid to step into. A place with several doors, if you will imagine,
that he has or is willing to open and walk into all for Neuroblastoma research. With his extensive research he can then make the weighty
decisions of whether to continue research in a direction or go towards a different "door". This provided us with a form of exhilaration that kept our
project interesting because we knew we could look forward to new advancements. In connection to grid mapping, we believe the ability for all researchers to
have access to various projects may save time and efforts. It can possible prevent the redundancies of research and
give way to a new freedom of advancement in scientific research and this
is exciting!
