PHOENIX Analyzing the DNA samples of youngsters who have not been found guilty of any crime is an unconstitutional warrantless search, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

In a unanimous decision, the justices said the state is free to force juveniles accused of certain serious offenses to provide a DNA sample. Justice Andrew Hurwitz, writing for the court, said that is little difference than fingerprints or mug shots.

But Hurwitz said that legal parallel ceases to exist once the state submits that sample for processing by the Department of Public Safety crime laboratory. He said that processing results in the state obtaining uniquely identifying information about individual genetics.''

What it also means, Hurwitz said, is that DNA profile is placed into both state and national databases so police agencies can use it to see if a youngster is linked to any unsolved crimes. The justices said that, absent a juvenile actually being adjudicated delinquent, there is no reason for the government to have that information.

Having a DNA profile before adjudication may conceivably speed such investigations,'' he wrote.

But one accused of a crime, although having diminished expectations of privacy in some respects, does not forfeit Fourth Amendment protections with respect to other offenses not charged absent either probable cause or reasonable suspicion,'' Hurwitz continued. An arrest for vehicular homicide, for example, cannot alone justify a warrantless search of an arrestee's financial records to see if he is also an embezzler.''

Wednesday's ruling could have broader implications.

Christina Phillis, director of Maricopa County's Office of Public Advocate, noted that other Arizona laws require similar testing of DNA samples taken from adults at the time of arrest. To date, though, Phillis said no adult who has not yet been convicted has mounted a similar challenge to this one.

This case and the logic behind it espoused by Hurwitz could provide the framework for the court to consider the issue.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, whose office had defended the DNA testing, said in a prepared statement he was pleased the court will allow samples to still be taken. But he disagreed with the conclusion that actually processing the sample amounted to any sort of invasion of privacy.

Read more:
Judge rules DNA analysis of unconvicted juveniles illegal

Analyzing the DNA samples of juveniles who have not been found guilty of any crime is an unconstitutional warrantless search, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

In a unanimous decision, the justices said the state may force juveniles accused of certain serious offenses to provide a DNA sample. Justice Andrew Hurwitz, writing for the court, said that is little different than fingerprints or mug shots.

But Hurwitz said that legal parallel ceases to exist once the state submits that sample for processing by the Department of Public Safety crime laboratory.

He said that by doing the lab processing, the state obtains "uniquely identifying information about individual genetics."

What it also means, Hurwitz said, is that DNA profile is placed into both state and national databases so police agencies can use it to see if a youth is linked to any unsolved crimes. The justices said that, absent a juvenile actually being found delinquent of a crime, there is no reason for the government to have that information.

"Having a DNA profile before adjudication may conceivably speed such investigations," he wrote.

"But one accused of a crime, although having diminished expectations of privacy in some respects, does not forfeit Fourth Amendment protections with respect to other offenses not charged absent either probable cause or reasonable suspicion," Hurwitz continued. "An arrest for vehicular homicide, for example, cannot alone justify a warrantless search of an arrestee's financial records to see if he is also an embezzler."

The ruling could have broader implications.

Christina Phillis, director of Maricopa County's Office of Public Advocate, noted that other Arizona laws require similar testing of DNA samples taken from adults at the time of arrest. To date, though, Phillis said no adult who has not yet been convicted has mounted a similar challenge to this one. This case - and the logic espoused by Hurwitz - could provide the framework for the court to consider the issue.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, whose office had defended the DNA testing, said he was pleased the court will allow samples to be taken. But he disagreed with the conclusion that processing the sample amounted to invasion of privacy.

The rest is here:
AZ high court limits analysis of juvenile defendants' DNA

CARMARTHENSHIRE, Wales, June 27 (UPI) -- Wales says it has recorded the DNA of all its native flowering plants, which may help conservation and lead to new drugs to fight illnesses.

It is the first country in the world to create such a database, the National Botanic Garden of Wales said.

Wales has about 75 percent of the flowering plants found in Britain, and the database contains 1,143 plants and conifers, officials said.

The Barcode Wales project has been led by Natasha de Vere, head of conservation and research from the National Botanic Garden in Carmarthenshire, the BBC reported Wednesday.

Barcodes are short DNA sequences allowing plants to be identified from pollen grains, seed pieces, or roots and wood.

"Wales is now in the unique position of being able to identify plant species from materials which in the past would have been incredibly difficult or impossible," de Vere said.

"Through the Barcode Wales project, we have created a powerful platform for a broad range of research from biodiversity conservation to human health."

In the next phase of a three-year project, non-native plants introduced by humans will have their DNA recorded, officials said.

The rest is here:
Wales records DNA of all native plants

ScienceDaily (June 27, 2012) Researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have been able, for the first time, to watch viruses infecting individual bacteria by transferring their DNA, and to measure the rate at which that transfer occurs. Shedding light on the early stages of infection by this type of virus -- a bacteriophage -- the scientists have determined that it is the cells targeted for infection, rather than the amount of genetic material within the viruses themselves, that dictate how quickly the bacteriophage's DNA is transferred.

"The beauty of our experiment is we were able to watch individual viruses infecting individual bacteria,"says Rob Phillips, the Fred and Nancy Morris Professor of Biophysics and Biology at Caltech and the principal investigator on the new study. "Other studies of the rate of infection have involved bulk measurements. With our methods, you can actually watch as a virus shoots out its DNA."

The new methods and results are described in a paper titled "A Single-Molecule Hershey-Chase Experiment," which will appear in the July 24 issue of the journal Current Biology and currently appears online. The lead authors of that paper, David Van Valen and David Wu, completed the work while graduate students in Phillips's group.

In the well-known 1952 Hershey-Chase experiment, Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Cold Spring Harbor convincingly confirmed earlier claims that DNA -- and not protein -- was the genetic material in cells. To prove this, the researchers used bacteriophages, which are able to infect bacteria using heads of tightly bundled DNA coated in a protein shell. Hershey and Chase radiolabeled sulfur, contained in the protein shell but not in the DNA, and phosphorus, found in the DNA but not in the protein shell. Then they let the bacteriophages infect the bacterial cells. When they isolated the cells and analyzed their contents, they found that only the radioactive phosphorus had made its way into the bacteria, proving that DNA is indeed the genetic material. The results also showed that, unlike the viruses that infect humans, bacteriophages transmit only their genetic information into their bacterial targets, leaving their "bodies" behind.

"This led, right from the get-go, to people wondering about the mechanism -- about how the DNA gets out of the virus and into the infected cell," Phillips says. Several hypotheses have focused on the fact that the DNA in the virus is under a tremendous amount of pressure. Indeed, previous work has shown that the genetic material is under more pressure within its protein shell than champagne experiences in a corked bottle. After all, as Phillips says, "There are 16 microns [16,000 nanometers] of DNA in a tiny 50-nanometer-sized shell. It's like taking 500 meters of cable from the Golden Gate Bridge and putting it in the back of a FedEx truck."

Phillips's group wanted to find out whether that pressure plays a dominant role in transferring the DNA. Instead, he says, "What we discovered is that the thing that mattered most was not the pressure in the bacteriophage, but how much DNA was in the bacterial cell."

The researchers used a fluorescent dye to stain the DNA of two mutants of a bacteriophage known as lambda bacteriophage -- one with a short genome and one with a longer genome -- while that DNA was still inside the phage. Using a fluorescence microscope, they traced the glowing dye to see when and over what time period the viral DNA transferred from each phage into an E. coli bacterium. The mean ejection time was about five minutes, though that time varied considerably.

This was markedly different from what the group had seen previously when they ran a similar experiment in a test tube. In that earlier setup, they had essentially tricked the bacteriophages into ejecting their DNA into solution -- a task that the phages completed in less than 10 seconds. In that case, once the phage with the longer genome had released enough DNA to make what remained inside the phage equal in length to the shorter genome, the two phages ejected DNA at the same rate. Therefore, Phillips's team reasoned, it was the amount of DNA in the phage that determined how quickly the DNA was transferred.

But Phillips says, "What was true in the test tube is not true in the cell." E. coli cells contain roughly 3 million proteins within a box that is roughly one micron (1,000 nanometers) on each side. Less than 10 nanometers separate each protein from its neighbors. "There's no room for anything else," Phillips says. "These cells are really crowded."

And so, when the bacteriophages try to inject their DNA into the cells, the factor that limits the rate of transfer is how jam-packed those cells are. "In this case," Phillips says, "it had more to do with the recipient, and less to do with the pressure that had built up inside the phage."

See the original post:
Physics of going viral: Rate of DNA transfer from viruses to bacteria measured