Daily Archives: June 14, 2013

DNA ACTIVATION QUESTIONS ( 2 )

By: NYC812

More:
DNA ACTIVATION QUESTIONS ( 2 ) - Video

Instead, she focused on DNA-A, which forms a more compact and complex helix and so is harder to understand from x-ray diffraction patterns used to image the molecule.

In a letter to the Times newspaper, Mrs Glynn said: "Because the A form gave clearer diffraction patterns she concentrated first on that form with hindsight that was a mistaken decision.

"But a letter (discovered in 2010) written by Francis Crick to Maurice Wilkins in June 1953 suggests that, in Rosalinds situation, Crick might have taken the same decision: This is the first time I have had an opportunity for a detailed study of the picture of Structure A, and I must say I am glad I didnt see it earlier, as it would have worried me considerably.

Mrs Glynn was responding to criticism levelled at her sister by James Watson, one of the Cambridge University scientists who wrote the paper that first proposed DNA's helical structure.

Speaking at the Cheltenham Science Festival last week, Dr Watson accused Dr Franklin of failing to understand the significance of her work and for sitting on her findings for eight months.

He said: "I thought she shouldn't get a prize for being wrong, stubborn and not getting the answer.

"Her own manuscript has the date March 17, 1953, when she concluded DNA was two chains twisted around each other.

"That was more than two weeks after we'd found the answer.

"And when I had seen her at the end of January she got angry when I sad that DNA was helical ... I thought she might hit me."

Franklin's manuscript was eventually published in the same issue of Nature as Watson and Crick's. Her colleague at Kings College London, Maurice Wilkins, was invited by Watson and Crick to add his name to their paper.

Visit link:
DNA discovery could have been earlier if not for 'mistaken decision' by Rosalind Franklin

The state could take DNA samples from people convicted for certain disorderly persons offenses under a bill that a Senate committee approved on Thursday.

Other legislation that advanced Thursday included bills to outlaw gay conversion therapy for minors and to crack down on inmates receiving government benefits. Lawmakers also debated whether to prohibit employers from conducting background checks on job applicants before extending a conditional job offer.

Disorderly persons

Under a bill that the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee approved unanimously, people convicted of shoplifting, prostitution, drug offenses or certain other disorderly persons crimes would have to submit to DNA sampling.

Currently, people convicted of first- through fourth-degree crimes must submit a DNA sample to the state, which adds it to a database and tries to match it with samples found at crime scenes.

By expanding the DNA database, we can greatly improve the ability of law enforcement agencies to positively identify the perpetrator and reduce the number of false convictions, said Sen. Paul Sarlo, D-Wood-Ridge, one of the bills sponsors.

The legislation heads to the full Senate next. An Assembly version has not yet come up in committee.

Conversion therapy

Legislation prohibiting gay-conversion therapy, which attempts to help people change their sexual orientation, was approved by an Assembly committee.

The bill would apply to licensed professionals, such as psychiatrists or social workers, and bar them from engaging in sexual-orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years old.

Read more from the original source:
DNA, gay-therapy bills advance in Legislature

DNA from the bones of medieval leprosy victims is helping scientists improve their understanding of the disease.

The samples, extracted from skeletons buried at the St Mary Magdalen Hill leprosy hospital in Winchester, Hampshire, were used to construct the entire genome, or genetic code, of the ancient leprosy bacterium.

A waxy coat surrounding the bug is believed to have protected it from degradation over the centuries.

The disfiguring disease was once endemic in Europe but largely disappeared during the Middle Ages.

Lead scientist Professor Graham Stewart, from the University of Surrey, said: "Understanding diseases from the past will help us predict emerging infectious diseases and potentially suggest how we may be better able to control existing diseases.

"We hope to analyse even older DNA, tracing leprosy and also tuberculosis back to their origins in human history."

The research, published in the journal Science, is part of an international project to reconstruct genome sequences of bacteria from five medieval skeletons excavated in Denmark, Sweden and the UK.

Scientists compared the ancient genomes with those from 11 modern strains of leprosy from around the world. They found that leprosy in the Americas had a European origin, and strains now found exclusively in the Middle East were once also present in Europe.

Bioarchaeologist Dr Mike Taylor, also from the University of Surrey, said: "The excavations at St Mary Magdalen, Winchester and other European sites bring us literally face to face with the effects the disease had on susceptible people, almost a millennium before the advent of antibiotics."

Read more:
Leprosy DNA analysed from bones

The US Supreme Court has issued a potentially far-reaching ruling, stating that DNA in the human genome is a "product of nature" that cannot be patented.

The nine-member court's unanimous finding on Thursday overturns exclusive rights to use genes that have been issued in recent decades by the US Patent and Trademark Office, but does allow companies to patent their developments of synthetic, so-called composite DNA.

Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the decision, wrote: "A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent-eligible merely because it has been isolated."

However, he went on to write that composite DNA "is patent-eligible because it is not naturally occurring."

The decision strikes down patents issued to Myriad Genetics Inc, which had isolated a rare gene associated with very high rates of breast and ovarian cancer in women who carry the mutation. The company had claimed the exclusive right to offer tests for the gene, based on its patent.

Hollywood star Angelina Jolie, whose mother died of ovarian cancer, announced last month that she had undergone a double mastectomy after the Myriad test showed that she carried the gene.

Her case illustrated how personal genomics are changing health care.

The US Patent Act authorises patents for the invention or discovery of "any new and useful ... composition of matter," but not "laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas."

Thomas wrote that patent protection "strikes a delicate balance" to create incentives for discovery without impeding the exchange of information that fuels invention.

Myriad found the location of the cancer-linked gene but "did not create or alter" the information or structure of those DNA segments, the court said.

Read more:
Human DNA not patentable: US Supreme Court

13 June 2013 Last updated at 12:34 ET

Human genes may not be patented, but artificially copied DNA can be claimed as intellectual property, the US Supreme Court has ruled unanimously.

The court quashed patents held by a Utah-based firm on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer.

The opinion said DNA came from nature and was not eligible for patenting.

The US biotechnology industry had warned any blanket ban on such patents would jeopardise huge investment in gene research and therapies.

"We hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in Thursday's opinion.

But his ruling said that synthetic molecules known as complementary DNA can be patented "because it is not naturally occurring".

Myriad Genetics, the company at the heart of the lawsuit, saw its shares rise after Thursday's compromise decision.

Jason Palmer Science reporter, BBC News

The key to Thursday's ruling is an interpretation of how much modification of a natural product makes it an invention. But what is at stake is the development of an industry that makes good use of our genetic material. Absolute dominion over the use of a snippet of genetic information might stifle competition, but leaving it as a gift of nature free of commerce could deter innovation.

Originally posted here:
US Supreme Court bans DNA patents

NBC's Pete Williams shares details on the Supreme Court's unanimous decision that says human genes cannot be patented, but Synthetic DNA is patentable.

By Maggie Fox, Senior Writer, NBC News

Patients, researchers and industry all claimed victory Thursday when the Supreme Court ruled that human DNA cannot be patented, opening the door for dozens of scientists and others trying to market newer and better tests to tell people about their risks for a range of illnesses from cancer to heart disease.

But the unanimous ruling left in place protections for the biotechnology industry and methods used to make drugs based on engineered DNA.

The ruling clearly invalidated Myriad Genetics' most controversial patents on tests for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that raise the risk of breast, ovarian and other cancers. But it did not go so far as to remove patents on artificial DNA, which is not widely used in genetic testing, but is used in other biotechnology applications.

We just are so glad that women and our genes are not being held hostage by a private corporation any more, said Lisbeth Ceriani, a Massachusetts breast cancer survivor who is one of the plaintiffs in the suit.

The researchers whose lawsuit prompted the decision were also celebrating. They say it will make genetic tests cheaper and far more widely available in the future.

I think it changes everything, Dr. Harry Ostrer, a genetics expert at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York and one of the main plaintiffs in the case, told NBC News.

I think this is a green light for us to go ahead with our testing.

Patients will benefit, said Dr. Ossama Tawfik an expert in breast cancer pathology at the University of Kansas Medical Center and a member of the American Society for Clinical Pathology. I know the costs of these tests will be considerably lower without patent protection, allowing more women at risk to be tested, Tawfik said in a statement.

More:
You can't patent DNA, Supreme Court rules

NBC's Pete Williams shares details on the Supreme Court's unanimous decision that says human genes cannot be patented, but Synthetic DNA is patentable.

By Maggie Fox, Senior Writer, NBC News

Patients, researchers and industry all claimed victory Thursday when the Supreme Court ruled that human DNA cannot be patented, opening the door for dozens of scientists and others trying to market newer and better tests to tell people about their risks for a range of illnesses from cancer to heart disease.

But the unanimous ruling left in place protections for the biotechnology industry and methods used to make drugs based on engineered DNA.

The ruling clearly invalidated Myriad Genetics' most controversial patents on tests for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that raise the risk of breast, ovarian and other cancers. But it did not go so far as to remove patents on artificial DNA, which is not widely used in genetic testing, but is used in other biotechnology applications.

We just are so glad that women and our genes are not being held hostage by a private corporation any more, said Lisbeth Ceriani, a Massachusetts breast cancer survivor who is one of the plaintiffs in the suit.

The researchers whose lawsuit prompted the decision were also celebrating. They say it will make genetic tests cheaper and far more widely available in the future.

I think it changes everything, Dr. Harry Ostrer, a genetics expert at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York and one of the main plaintiffs in the case, told NBC News.

I think this is a green light for us to go ahead with our testing.

Patients will benefit, said Dr. Ossama Tawfik an expert in breast cancer pathology at the University of Kansas Medical Center and a member of the American Society for Clinical Pathology. I know the costs of these tests will be considerably lower without patent protection, allowing more women at risk to be tested, Tawfik said in a statement.

Read the original here:
DNA ruling will make gene tests cheaper, experts say