The Epipelagic Is Divided Into Two Components: The Oceanic Waters And The

Question

1 of 25

The epipelagic is divided into two components: the oceanic waters and the

photic zone.

neritic zone.

pelagic realm.

upper photic zone.

subtidal zone.

Question

2 of 25

Most of the primary production carried out in the open ocean is performed by

seaweeds.

kelps.

phytoplankton.

seagrasses.

zooxanthellae.

Question

3 of 25

Net phytoplankton consist mostly of

copepods.

diatoms and dinoflagellates.

nanoplankton.

cyanobacteria (blue-green algae).

nanoplankton and diatoms.

Question

4 of 25

Typically the most abundant group in the zooplankton are the.

larvaceans.

krill.

fish larvae.

nanoplankton.

copepods.

Question

5 of 25

Which of these is least likely to be seen in the epipelagic?

Suspension feeders

Deposit feeders

Primary production

First-level carnivores

Second-level carnivores

Question

6 of 25

Which of these groups builds a mucus “house?”

Copepods

Arrow worms

Larvaceans

Planktonic snails such as pteropods

Snail larvae

Question

7 of 25

Which of the following accounts for about 50% of the primary production in epipelagic waters?

Diatoms

Cyanobacteria

Dinoflagellates

Coccolithophorids

Silicoflagellates

Question

8 of 25

The following are an adaptation to the planktonic way of life except

spines.

small size.

decrease in drag.

substitution of heavy ions by light ones.

gas-filled bladders.

Question

9 of 25

The storage of lipids within the body is an adaptation in plankton since lipids

make cells heavier.

increase body density.

contain air pockets so they help in buoyancy.

contain a larger amount of energy.

are less dense than water.

Question

10 of 25

The neuston consists of animals that

swim against currents.

sink to the bottom portion of the water column.

are top carnivores in the pelagic realm.

spend their entire lives in the plankton.

live at the surface, but remain underwater.

Question

11 of 25

Counter shading is a form of

shading with bioluminescence.

warning coloration.

structural coloration.

protective coloration.

cryptic coloration.

Question

12 of 25

The rete mirabile found in some fishes is involved in.

increasing speed.

decreasing buoyancy.

digesting food.

increasing buoyancy.

conserving body heat.

Question

13 of 25

Zooplankton that migrate vertically

hibernate at night and feed during the day.

feed at the surface during the day, and migrate below the photic zone at night.

feed in the photic zone during the day, and migrate to the surface at night.

stay below the photic zone during the day, and feed at the surface at night.

migrate up and down but always stay below the photic zone.

Question

14 of 25

Most animals in the epipelagic are omnivores. This means that they eat

producers and consumers.

part of the neuston.

zooplankton.

detritus.

phytoplankton.

Question

15 of 25

What is the relationship between dissolved organic matter (DOM) and bacteria in the epipelagic?

Bacteria feed on the DOM, making it available to other animals in the food chain that feed on bacteria.

Bacteria supply most of the DOM.

Bacteria feed on DOM and thus it is unavailable to other animals.

Bacteria cannot utilize DOM and thus feed on detritus, depleting it through most of the epipelagic.

Bacteria cannot utilize DOM, making it available to animals.

Question

16 of 25

The most common limiting nutrient in the ocean is

silicon.

oxygen.

nitrogen.

carbonate.

phosphorus.

Question

17 of 25

The fall bloom in temperate waters is caused when

primary production decreases as nutrients increase.

primary production decreases due to light limitation.

primary production decreases as nutrients decrease.

primary production increases as nutrients increase.

primary production increases as the number of zooplankton increases.

Question

18 of 25

Equatorial upwelling occurs as a result of

temperature changes at the Equator.

the divergence of equatorial surface currents.

the convergence of equatorial surface currents.

winds causing the Ekman transport of surface water offshore.

El Niño conditions north and south of the Equator.

Question

19 of 25

The Southern Oscillation can be best described as

relative changes between two pressure systems.

variation in wind speed over the Pacific Ocean.

relationship between sea-surface and high-altitude pressures.

tidal differences between the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

wind-speed differences along the Equator.

Question

20 of 25

The long spines and projections seen in many epipelagic plankton are used for

feeding.

reproduction.

increasing drag.

increasing buoyancy.

gathering nutrients.

Question

21 of 25

Most epipelagic fish have a tail that is

short and wide.

short and narrow.

short and thin.

high and wide.

high and narrow.

Question

22 of 25

Which of the following adaptations is least likely to be seen in epipelagic fish?

Stiff fins

A smooth, scaleless body

Increased white muscle

Grove in body for fins

Eyes flush with body

Question

23 of 25

The largest source of dissolved organic material (DOM) in the epipelagic is

viruses.

bacteria.

phytoplankton.

zooplankton.

nekton.

Question

24 of 25

The lateral line system in fishes functions in ________________.

sensing vibrations in the water

detecting magnetic lines of force in water

sensing light in aphotic zones

sweeping surrounding water for plankton

bioluminescence

Question

25 of 25

The remote sensing system found in dolphins and some other cetaceans is ___________.

communal mutualistic behavior

extrasensory perception

echolocation

underwater acoustic sensitivity

heightened smell

 

 

 

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Human Monkey Chimera

I will be attaching an article and another word file for questions to answer. please answer those questions with an expanded explanation. and this work is due tomorrow. thanks

  • Review: Chimeric contribution of human extended pluripotent stem cells to monkey embryos ex vivo by Tan et. Al. 2021

     

    1. Describe the basic process for making a chimera (graphical abstract). What are some additional changes the research could try? (limitations of the study).

    2. How long were the embryos monitored after chimera formation, which was at 6 days post fertilization (d.p.f.). What was the relative survival rate?

    3. Why are scientists doing this type of work / what is the purpose?

    4. Did the researchers follow proper guidelines, support your answer (go past the references to the additional material).

    5. In your opinion should this type of research be continued, why or why not.

     

     

    The following links discuss issues brought up by this research.

    https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-moral-status-of-human-monkey-chimeras

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01001-2

    https://www.livescience.com/human-monkey-chimeric-embryos.html

    Article

    Chimeric contribution of human extended pluripotent stem cells to monkey embryos ex vivo

    Graphical abstract

    Highlights

    d Generation of human-monkey chimeric embryos ex vivo with

    hEPSCs

    d hEPSCs differentiated into hypoblast and epiblast lineages

    d scRNA-seq analyses revealed developmental trajectories of

    human and monkey cells

    d The approach may allow for enhancing chimerism between

    evolutionarily distant species

    Tan et al., 2021, Cell 184, 2020–2032 April 15, 2021 ÂȘ 2021 Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.020

    Authors

    Tao Tan, Jun Wu, Chenyang Si, …,

    Weizhi Ji, Yuyu Niu,

    Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte

    Correspondence [email protected] (T.T.), [email protected] (J.W.), [email protected] (W.J.), [email protected] (Y.N.), [email protected] (J.C.I.B.)

    In brief

    Human cells, in the form of extended

    pluripotent stem cells, have the ability to

    contribute to both embryonic and extra-

    embryonic lineages in ex-vivo-cultured

    monkey embryos.

    ll

     

     

    ll

    Article

    Chimeric contribution of human extended pluripotent stem cells to monkey embryos ex vivo Tao Tan,1,4,* Jun Wu,2,4,5,* Chenyang Si,1,4 Shaoxing Dai,1,4 Youyue Zhang,1,4 Nianqin Sun,1 E Zhang,1 Honglian Shao,1

    Wei Si,1 Pengpeng Yang,1 Hong Wang,1 Zhenzhen Chen,1 Ran Zhu,1 Yu Kang,1 Reyna Hernandez-Benitez,2

    Llanos Martinez Martinez,3 Estrella Nuñez Delicado,3 W. Travis Berggren,2 May Schwarz,2 Zongyong Ai,1 Tianqing Li,1

    Concepcion Rodriguez Esteban,2 Weizhi Ji,1,* Yuyu Niu,1,* and Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte2,6,* 1State Key Laboratory of Primate Biomedical Research, Institute of Primate Translational Medicine, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, Yunnan 650500, China 2Gene Expression Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA 3Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia (UCAM), Campus de los Jerónimos, No 135 12, Guadalupe 30107, Spain 4These authors contributed equally 5Present address: Department of Molecular Biology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA 6Lead contact

    *Correspondence: [email protected] (T.T.), [email protected] (J.W.), [email protected] (W.J.), [email protected] (Y.N.), [email protected] (J. C.I.B.)

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.020

    SUMMARY

    Interspecies chimera formation with human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) represents a necessary alternative to evaluate hPSC pluripotency in vivo and might constitute a promising strategy for various regenerative medicine applications, including the generation of organs and tissues for transplantation. Studies using mouse and pig embryos suggest that hPSCs do not robustly contribute to chimera formation in species evolutionarily distant to humans. We studied the chimeric competency of human extended pluripotent stem cells (hEPSCs) in cynomolgus monkey (Macaca fascicularis) embryos cultured ex vivo. We demonstrate that hEPSCs survived, proliferated, and generated several peri- and early post-implantation cell lineages in- side monkey embryos. We also uncovered signaling events underlying interspecific crosstalk that may help shape the unique developmental trajectories of human and monkey cells within chimeric embryos. These re- sults may help to better understand early human development and primate evolution and develop strategies to improve human chimerism in evolutionarily distant species.

    INTRODUCTION

    Pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) are capable of indefinite self-

    renewal in culture and generating all adult cell types (De Los An-

    geles et al., 2015; Hackett and Surani, 2014; Rossant and Tam,

    2017; Wu and Izpisua Belmonte, 2016). PSCs have recently been

    harnessed for interspecies organogenesis via blastocyst

    complementation, a technique that holds potential to provide

    large quantities of in-vivo-generated human cells, tissues, and

    organs for regenerative medicine applications, including organ

    transplantation (Suchy and Nakauchi, 2018; Wu et al., 2016).

    One of the requirements for successful interspecies blastocyst

    complementation with human PSCs (hPSCs) is their ability to

    contribute to chimera formation. The chimeric competency of

    hPSCs has been systematically tested in several animal species

    (Wu et al., 2016), but despite sustained efforts from different lab-

    oratories, the general consensus is that hPSCs do not consis-

    tently and robustly contribute to chimera formation when the

    host animal has a high evolutionary distance from humans

    (e.g., mice and pigs; Wu et al., 2016, 2017). This is the case

    2020 Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021 ÂȘ 2021 Elsevier Inc.

    even when human cell apoptosis is inhibited (Das et al., 2020;

    Huang et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018). Xenogeneic barriers be-

    tween hPSCs and evolutionarily distant host animal species

    have been suggested to account for limited chimerism (Wu

    et al., 2016, 2017), though the use of hPSCs for chimera studies

    in host species evolutionarily close to humans remains unex-

    plored to date.

    Cultured PSCs reflect the continuum of pluripotency that is

    seen in vivo, and different cell culture formulations result in

    distinct pluripotency states in vitro (Morgani et al., 2017; Smith,

    2017; Weinberger et al., 2016). hPSCs in different pluripotency

    states exhibit distinct transcriptional, epigenetic, and metabolic

    features. They also differ in their chimeric potential when intro-

    duced into animal embryos (De Los Angeles, 2019; Harvey

    et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2018). Recently, we and others identi-

    fied human extended PSCs (hEPSCs) that demonstrated

    improved chimeric capability in mouse conceptuses (Gao

    et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2017b). To date, however, the chimeric

    competency of hEPSCs has not been determined in other

    species.

     

     

    ll Article

    Leveraging a recently developed culture system that enables

    cynomolgus monkey (monkey for short) embryos to develop

    up to 20 days ex vivo (Ma et al., 2019; Niu et al., 2019), we per-

    formed microinjection of hEPSCs into monkey blastocysts and

    examined their contribution to cultured monkey embryos at

    different time points (Figure 1A). We found that hEPSCs could

    integrate into the inner cell masses (ICMs) of late monkey blasto-

    cysts and contributed to both embryonic and extra-embryonic

    lineages in peri- and early post-implantation stages during pro-

    longed embryo culture. We also determined the differentiation

    trajectory of hEPSCs within cultured monkey embryos by sin-

    gle-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) analysis.

    RESULTS

    Generation of human-monkey chimeric blastocysts in vitro

    To determine the chimera competency of hPSCs in a closely

    related non-human primate species, we used a well-character-

    ized hEPSC line generated by cellular reprogramming, iPS1-

    EPSCs, which demonstrated improved chimerism in embryonic

    day 10.5 (E10.5) mouse conceptuses over other reported hPSCs

    (Yang et al., 2017b). Consistent with the previous report, iPS1-

    EPSCs exhibited a dome-shaped colony morphology and ex-

    pressed the core pluripotency transcription factors OCT4,

    NANOG, and SOX2 (Figure S1A). To generate human-monkey

    chimeric embryos, early blastocysts from cynomolgus monkeys

    (6 days post-fertilization [d.p.f.6]) were injected with 25 iPS1-

    EPSCs labeled with tdTomato (TD). Injected embryos were first

    cultured to the late blastocyst stage (d.p.f.7) for analysis. The

    proliferation of hEPSCs within monkey blastocysts was evident

    (Video S1). In total, TD+ iPS1-EPSCs were detected in all

    d.p.f.7 monkey blastocysts (100%, n = 132) (Figure S1B).

    Chimeric contribution of hEPSCs to peri- and post- implantation monkey embryos We next took advantage of a recently established prolonged em-

    bryo culture system that supports ex vivo primate (human and

    monkey) embryogenesis to the gastrulation stage (Deglincerti

    et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2019; Niu et al., 2019; Shahbazi et al.,

    2016; Xiang et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2019). In this embryo culture

    system, the zona pellucida is removed and the denuded blasto-

    cysts are allowed to attach to the culture dish for further develop-

    ment. We used this system to trace the fate of hEPSCs in

    monkey embryos at peri- and post-implantation stages. Similar

    to noninjected controls (92.31%, n = 104) (Niu et al., 2019),

    most embryos injected with hEPSCs attached at approximately

    d.p.f.10 (92.79%, n = 111). After attachment, the injected em-

    bryos continued to grow, and an embryonic disc became visible

    at approximately d.p.f.11 as seen with controls (Figure 1B). TD+

    human cells were found in the embryonic disc of more than half

    of the injected embryos at d.p.f. 9, but this ratio progressively

    declined at approximately one-third by d.p.f.13 (Figure 1C). To

    determine whether introduced hEPSCs may affect embryo

    development, we evaluated and compared the developmental

    status of injected and control embryos (Niu et al., 2019). We

    found that the developmental ratios of injected embryos were

    slightly lower than that of controls (Figure 1D). Furthermore,

    similar to controls, the developmental ratios of injected embryos

    dropped sharply at approximately d.p.f.15, which may reflect the

    limitation of the 2D attachment embryo culture system

    (Figure 1D).

    To study the developmental potential of hEPSCs in monkey

    embryos, we performed immunofluorescence (IF) studies using

    antibodies specific for several embryonic and extra-embryonic

    lineages. Analyses were performed between d.p.f.9 and

    d.p.f.19. At the peri-implantation stage (d.p.f.9), on average,

    10.2 ± 7.2 (n = 9) iPS1-EPSCs were found incorporated into

    the ICM (the number of TD+OCT4+ cells found within or close

    to NANOG+ or OCT4+ monkey cells) (Figure 2A). Although these

    cells expressed OCT4, only a few of them expressed NANOG

    (Figure S1C). Supporting their epiblast (EPI)-like identity, we

    did not observe GATA6 (a hypoblast [HYP] marker) expression

    in these cells (Figure S1C). In addition, TD+GATA4+ HYP-like

    cells were also detected (Figure 2B). In contrast to the results re-

    ported in mice (Yang et al., 2017b), only a few iPS1-EPSCs were

    detected in the trophectoderm (TE) layer of monkey blastocysts

    and expressed TE (TE or trophoblast) marker genes (e.g.,

    TFAP2C and CK7) (Figure 2C).

    At d.p.f.11, TD+OCT4+cells were also detected in the EPI layer

    of monkey embryos, and these cells rarely expressed T+ (also

    known as Brachyury), a marker of gastrulation. By contrast, T+

    monkey cells were detected at the dorsal amnion of the embryos

    (Figure 2D). In addition, TD+ human cells expressing a HYP

    marker, platelet-derived growth factor receptor-alpha

    (PDGFRa), were found intermingled within monkey HYP cells

    (Figure 2E). OCT4+ human cells expressing COL6A1, a marker

    of extra-embryonic mesenchyme cells (EXMCs), were found

    outside of the EPI layer, suggesting ongoing differentiation of

    hEPSCs toward EXMCs (Figure S1D). At d.p.f.13, hEPSCs

    were detected beneath the EPI layer and expressed an endo-

    derm marker, SOX17, suggesting that they have initiated gastru-

    lation (Figure 2F). Interestingly, we found that from d.p.f.13

    onward human cells tended to group together and segregate

    from the monkey EPI layer. These human cells appeared to un-

    dergo differentiation into gastrulating cells as evidenced by the

    gained expression of OTX2 (Martyn et al., 2018; Vincent et al.,

    2003) while maintaining OCT4 expression (Figure S1E). Overall,

    we found that hEPSCs exhibited reasonable contribution to the

    EPI (with the highest contribution of 7.08% observed at

    d.p.f.15), relatively lower contribution to the HYP (with the high-

    est contribution of 4.96% observed at d.p.f.19), and limited

    contribution to the TE in peri- and post-implantation monkey em-

    bryos (Figure 2G).

    Transcriptional landscape of human-monkey chimeric embryos To further delineate the developmental trajectory of human-

    monkey chimeric embryos, scRNA-seq analysis was carried

    out to profile the transcriptomes of human and monkey cells at

    different developmental stages. Following embryo dissociation,

    single human (TD+) and monkey (TDïżœ) cells were manually collected using fluorescence microscopy and subjected to

    scRNA-seq. In total, we sequenced 227 human and 302 monkey

    cells isolated from chimeric embryos at different time points dur-

    ing ex vivo culture (d.p.f.9–d.p.f.17; Table S2). TD expression and

    Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021 2021

     

     

    Figure 1. Generation and developmental capability of human-monkey ex-vivo chimeras

    (A) Schematic of the generation and analyses of chimeric embryos derived from blastocyst injection of hEPSCs (created with BioRender.com). hEPSCs, human

    extended pluripotent stem cells; EPI, epiblast; HYP, hypoblast; TE, trophectoderm; EXMC, extra-embryonic mesenchyme cell; GAS, gastrulating cell; IF,

    immunofluorescence.

    (B) Representative bright-field images of hEPSC-injected monkey embryos cultured in vitro until d.p.f.19 (n = 111 embryos for d.p.f.9; n = 91 embryos for d.p.f.11;

    n = 60 embryos for d.p.f.13; n = 38 embryos for d.p.f.15; n = 12 embryos for d.p.f.17 and n = 3 embryos for d.p.f.19). Scale bar, 100 mm. Yellow dotted lines indicate

    ICM (d.p.f.9) or embryonic disc (d.p.f.11 to d.p.f.19).

    (C) Histogram showing the percentages of host monkey embryos containing human cells within ICM or embryonic disc (yellow dotted lines in B).

    (D) Dynamics of developmental ratios of chimeric (n = 126, d.p.f.8) and non-chimeric monkey embryos (n = 104, data from Niu et al., 2019). Embryos without clear

    embryonic disc structure and/or appear dead were excluded from the analysis.

    See also Figure S1 and Video S1.

    ll

    2022 Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021

    Article

     

     

    Figure 2. hEPSCs contribute to chimera

    formation in peri- and post-implantation

    monkey embryos

    (A) Representative IF images showing integration

    of TD-positive hEPSCs into ICM of host monkey

    embryos at d.p.f.9 (n = 7). The embryos were

    stained for OCT4 (green) and NANOG (gray). Scale

    bar, 250 mm. Bottom, enlargements of the insert

    (white dotted line) in the top panel. Arrows indicate

    TD-positive hEPSCs expressing OCT4 and

    NANOG. Yellow dotted line indicates ICM. Scale

    bar, 50 mm.

    (B) Representative IF images showing hEPSCs

    differentiated into HYP-like cells within host

    monkey embryos at d.p.f.9. The embryos were

    stained for GATA4 (gray) and NANOG (green).

    Scale bar, 250 mm. Bottom, enlargements of the

    insert (white dotted line) in the top panel. Arrow

    indicates a TD-positive hEPSC expressing

    GATA4. Yellow dotted line indicates ICM. Scale

    bar, 100 mm.

    (C) Representative IF images showing integration

    of TD-positive hEPSCs into TE of host monkey

    embryos at d.p.f.9 (n = 3). The embryos were

    stained for TFAP2C (gray) and CK7 (green). Scale

    bar, 100 mm. Bottom, enlargements of the insert

    (white dotted line) in the top panel. Arrow indicates

    a TD-positive hEPSC expressing TFAP2C and

    CK7. Scale bar, 50 mm.

    (D) Representative IF images showing incorporation

    of hEPSCs into EPI of host monkey embryo at

    d.p.f.11 (n = 3). The embryos were stained for T

    (gray) and OCT4 (green). Scale bar, 250 mm. Bot-

    tom: enlargements of inserts (white dotted line) in

    the top panel. Notably, hEPSCs rarely express T

    (arrow), a marker of mesoderm, whereas the

    expression of T is detected in monkey cells

    (arrowhead). Yellow dotted line indicates EPI. Scale

    bar, 25 mm.

    (E) Expression of HYP marker, PDGFRa, in hEPSCs

    at d.p.f.11 (n = 2). The embryos were stained for

    PDGFRa (green). Scale bar, 50 mm. Bottom: en-

    largements of the insert (white dotted line) in the top

    panel. Arrow indicates a tdTomato-positive hEPSC

    expressing PDGFRa. Yellow dotted line indicates

    EPI. Scale bar, 10 mm.

    (F) IF images of sections of monkey embryos at

    d.p.f.13 (n = 5) staining for SOX17 (green).

    Arrows indicate tdTomato-positive hEPSCs expressing SOX17. Scale bar, 50 mm. Yellow dotted line indicates EPI.

    (G) Levels of chimerism of hEPSCs within EPI, HYP, and TE. EPI cells expressed only OCT4, and HYP cells expressed GATA6 and/or GATA4, whereas TE expressed

    CK7 (a total of 25 embryos and 17,938 cells were analyzed). EPI, epiblast; HYP, hypoblast; TE, trophectoderm; TD, tdTomato; DAPI, 40,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole. See also Figure S1.

    ll Article

    the ratio of reads mapped to the human or cynomolgus monkey

    genomes were used to further confirm each cell’s species of

    origin (Figures S2A and S2B). After stringent filtering, 200 human

    and 272 monkey cells were used for further analyses (Table S2).

    On average, 9,798 genes (transcripts per million [TPM] > 0) and

    27,936,953 reads were detected per cell. There was no statistical

    difference in the number of genes and reads detected between

    human and monkey cells (Figure S2C). For comparison, we

    also included published scRNA-seq datasets containing cells

    from monkey and human embryos in the analyses (Nakamura

    et al., 2016; Niu et al., 2019; Xiang et al., 2020; Zhou et al.,

    2019). To avoid batch-specific systematic variations of scRNA-

    seq caused by integration of different datasets, we used an ‘‘an-

    chors’’ method that is recommended for batch-effect removal

    (Stuart et al., 2019) (Figure S2C).

    We first performed t-distributed stochastic neighbor embed-

    ding (t-SNE) analysis on the scRNA-seq datasets. Based on

    the expression of known lineage markers, we identified four ma-

    jor cell clusters that were present in all samples (both chimeric

    and control embryos): EPI, HYP, TE, and EXMC (Figures 3A,

    3B, and S2D). These cells also expressed lineage-specific

    markers that showed conservation between humans and

    Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021 2023

     

     

    A

    C

    D

    B Figure 3. Transcriptional landscape of hu- man-monkey chimeric embryos

    (A) t-SNE plot of cells from chimeric and control

    non-chimeric embryos. Cells were identified as

    EPI, HYP, TE, and EXMC. Cells were colored by

    different species origins and datasets.

    (B) Expression of lineage-specific marker genes of

    EPI, HYP, and TE exhibited on t-SNE plots. A

    gradient of gray, yellow, and red indicates low to

    high expression.

    (C) The phylogenetic tree shows the cluster of EPI,

    HYP, and TE cells from chimeric embryos at

    different stages (d.p.f.9, 11, 13, 15, and 17). Cells

    are highlighted by species origins (human or

    monkey), different stages (d.p.f.9, 11, 13, 15, and

    17), and different cell types (EPI, HYP, and TE).

    (D) Bar plot showing the distribution of cells from

    different origins in the four lineages (EPI, EXMC,

    HYP, and TE). EPI, epiblast; HYP, hypoblast; TE,

    trophectoderm; EXMC, extra-embryonic mesen-

    chyme cell.

    See also Figure S2 and Table S2.

    ll Article

    monkeys identified in a previous study (Figure S2E) (Zhou et al.,

    2019). The presence of these cell types in chimeric embryos sug-

    gests that the development of host embryos was by and large

    unaffected by the injected hEPSCs (Ma et al., 2019; Niu et al.,

    2019), which is consistent with the morphological analysis

    (Figures 1B and 1D). Interestingly, phylogenetic tree analysis

    (based on gene expression levels) revealed that while most mon-

    key cells within chimeric embryos (chimeric monkey cells for

    short) segregated into distinct cell-type-specific clusters (EPI,

    HYP, and TE), chimeric human HYP- and TE-like cells clustered

    with EPI-like cells (Figure 3C). Thus, it seems that the chimeric

    monkey cells exhibited a more faithful lineage segregation than

    the introduced hEPSCs. In agreement with IF results, very few

    human TE-like cells were identified in the scRNA-seq data (Fig-

    ures 3A and 3D) and were therefore excluded from subsequent

    analyses. Together, these results demonstrate that hEPSCs

    can differentiate into several peri- and early post-implantation

    cell types after being introduced into monkey early blastocysts

    followed by ex vivo embryo culture.

    Transcriptome dynamics of hEPSCs during human- monkey chimera development We next investigated the transcriptional kinetics of chimeric hu-

    man and monkey cells. We first constructed a force-directed K-

    nearest neighbor graph (SPRING) (Weinreb et al., 2018) based on

    transcriptomic properties of all cells (see STAR Methods). All

    cells bifurcated into three branches: EPI, HYP, and TE (Fig-

    ure 4A). The correlations of gene expression patterns between

    chimeric and control (human and monkey) embryos were deter-

    2024 Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021

    mined (Figure 4B). Similar correlation co-

    efficients were obtained when chimeric

    human cells were compared to control

    human (0.460) or monkey (0.459) cells

    (Figure 4B, right panels). Intriguingly,

    when compared to control embryos,

    chimeric monkey cells exhibited higher

    correlation coefficients than chimeric human cells (Figure 4B,

    left panels). We next generated lineage-specific correlation

    matrices. We found that chimeric human EPI-like cells were

    similar to EPI cells in human embryos, whereas chimeric human

    HYP- and EXMC-like cells shared the highest correlation coeffi-

    cients with chimeric monkey HYP cells and EXMCs, respectively

    (Figure 4C). Of note, we also found that chimeric monkey EPI

    cells and EXMCs more resembled chimeric than control human

    cells. Interestingly, chimeric human EPI-like cells were found to

    gradually gravitate toward the chimeric monkey EPI cells, with

    R2 values increasing from 0.363 (pre-implantation EPI [Pre_EPI])

    to 0.464 (post-implantation late EPI [PostL_EPI]) and then to

    0.693 (gastrulating [Gast] cells) (Figure 4C). Taken together,

    these results demonstrate that the monkey embryonic microen-

    vironment exerts influence on the transcriptional states of human

    cells and vice versa.

    As monkey cells exhibited transcriptomic changes in the pres-

    ence of human cells, we next sought to delineate the develop-

    mental dynamics of monkey cells within chimeric embryos. We

    first identified differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between

    chimeric and control monkey embryos. Comparisons of EPI

    cells, HYP cells, and EXMCs revealed that 424, 7, and 241 genes

    were downregulated, whereas 5, 2, and 13 genes were upregu-

    lated, respectively, in cells from chimeric compared to control

    embryos, although the expression levels of lineage marker genes

    remained comparable (Figures 4D and S3A). Gene Ontology

    (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG)

    enrichment analyses identified a number of signaling pathways

    that were up- and downregulated in chimeric monkey EPI cells,

     

     

    A

    C

    D

    F G

    E

    B

    (legend on next page)

    ll

    Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021 2025

    Article

     

     

    ll Article

    HYP cells, and EXMCs. For example, the Hippo and transforming

    growth factor b (TGF-b) signaling pathways were downregulated

    in chimeric monkey EPI cells and EXMCs (Figure 4E),

    respectively.

    Having shown that the transcriptomic profiles of monkey EPI

    cells were altered in chimeric embryos, we next investigated

    whether the monkey EPI embryonic niche was also affected by

    human cells. To this end, CellPhoneDB (v2.0.1) (Vento-Tormo

    et al., 2018) was applied to identify potential cellular interactions

    between EPI and other lineages (HYP and EXMC) in both

    chimeric and control embryos (see STAR Methods). We sought

    to identify interactions that were specific to chimeric or control

    embryos. We found more ligand-receptor interactions in

    chimeric embryos when compared to control embryos (e.g.,

    117 [chimeric] versus 10 [control] specific ligand-receptor inter-

    actions were detected in monkey EPI cells) (Figures 4F and S3B;

    Table S3). KEGG analysis was performed to reveal specific

    signaling pathways that were enriched within chimeric and

    control embryos. We found several signaling pathways (e.g.,

    phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase [PI3K]-Akt and mitogen-activated

    protein kinase [MAPK] signaling pathways) that were strength-

    ened in chimeric embryos and new signaling pathways (e.g.,

    WNT signaling pathway) that were specifically enriched in

    chimeric embryos (Figure 4G). Using the same method, we

    also determined human and monkey cell-cell interactions within

    chimeric embryos and identified distinct ligand-receptor interac-

    tions in EPI cells, such as FGF5-FGFR4, NOTCH4-JAG2,

    WNT2B-FZD4, WISP3-SORL1, and PLXNB2-PTN (Figures S3C

    and S3D; Table S3). Taken together, our results suggest that

    cell-cell interactions are reinforced within the chimeric embryos

    and potentially lead to activation of additional signaling

    pathways.

    Chimeric human EPI-like cells display a distinct developmental trajectory EPI development is characterized by pluripotency transitions that

    may exhibit different dynamics between species. As proper EPI

    specification and differentiation are critical for chimera formation

    and development, we examined the lineage allocation of human

    EPI-like cells within the chimeric embryos and compared it with

    the datasets of in-vitro-cultured human and monkey embryos

    Figure 4. Developmental trajectory of human-monkey chimeric embry

    (A) The differentiation trajectory of chimeric cells and control non-chimeric cells

    colored by cell lineages.

    (B) Overall similarity under the four comparisons (chimera-monkey versus control

    versus control non-chimeric human [‘‘Chimera-Human vs. Control-Human’’], c

    Control-Monkey’’], and chimera-human versus control non-chimeric monkey [‘‘C

    (C) Heatmap of the correlation coefficients among different cell origins under cor

    (D) Histogram showing the numbers of DEGs for different lineages (EPI, HYP, and

    embryos. The red and blue colors represent up- and down-regulated genes, res

    (E) GO and KEGG enrichment analyses of the DEGs in (D). Red and blue represen

    respectively.

    (F) The Venn diagrams showing the overlap of the ligand-receptor interactions bet

    non-chimeric (Control-Monkey) monkey cells.

    (G) Comparison of KEGG pathways enriched by the specific interactions betwee

    cells in (F). EPI, epiblast; EXMC, extra-embryonic mesenchyme cell; HYP, hypobla

    gastrulating cell; DEG, differentially expressed gene.

    See also Figure S3 and Table S3.

    2026 Cell 184, 2020–2032, April 15, 2021

    (Nakamura et al., 2016; Niu et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2019). Human

    EPI-like cells were identified at pre-implantation, post-implanta-

    tion, and gastrulating stages, and at each stage, they expressed

    distinct markers (Figures 5A and S4A–S4C). A Sankey diagram

    also showed the same developmental dynamics of human EPI-

    like cells (Figure S4D). We next determined the relationship be-

    tween hEPSCs (Yang et al., 2017b), chimeric human EPI-like

    cells, EPI cells from control human and monkey embryos (Niu

    et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2019), and human and monkey PSCs

    (primed and naive) (Chan et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2015; Gafni

    et al., 2013; Theunissen et al., 2014). We observed that hEPSCs

    were more similar to early post-implantation EPI (PostE_EPI)

    and PostL_EPI cells from human and monkey embryos, respec-

    tively, as well as human and monkey naive PSCs. Chimeric hu-

    man PostL_EPI-like cells showed higher correlation coefficients

    to primed PSCs than naive PSCs (Figure S4E). To further investi-

    gate the transcriptional kinetics of hEPSCs (Yang et al., 2017b),

    chimeric humanEPI-like cells, andhost monkeyEPI cells, we per-

    formed RNA velocity (La Manno et al., 2018) and Slingshot ana-

    lyses (Street et al., 2018) (Figure 5B). We observed two distinct

    patterns of RNA velocity vectors; chimeric human PostL_EPI-

    like cells bore long vectors, and gastrulating-like cells bore short

    vectors. In contrast, host monkey PostL_EPI cells lacked long

    vectors, and gastrulating cells bore long vectors (Figure 5B, left

    two panels). These results imply that development is delayed

    for chimeric human EPI-like cells. Slingshot analysis revealed

    that after injection into monkey blastocysts, hEPSCs followed

    the EPSC to PostL_EPI to gastrulation developmental trajectory

    (Figure 5B, right panel). To further delineate the developmental

    trajectory of chimeric human EPI-like cells, we mapped all EPI-

    related human and monkey reads to a consensus genome and

    aligned EPI development trajectories between species using a

    previously reported method (Kanton et al., 2019). In agreement

    with the RNA velocity analysis, we found that chimeric human

    EPI-like cells differentiated more slowly than EPI cells from host

    monkey, control monkey, and human embryos (Figure 5C). These

    results suggest that the specification and/or differentiation of

    hEPSCs toward the EPI lineages was less efficient than embry-

    onic cells.

    As mentioned above, global transcriptional profiles of chimeric

    human EPI-like cells more resembled monkey EPI cells within the

    os

    . The differentiation trajectory was reconstructed using SPRING. Cells were

    non-chimeric human [‘‘Chimera-Monkey vs. Control-Human’’], chimera-human

    himera-monkey versus control non-chimeric monkey [‘‘Chimera-Monkey vs.

    himera-Human vs. Control-Monkey’’]). Cells are colored by cell origins.

    responding lineages (EPI, EXMC, HYP, Pre_EPI, PostL_EPI, and Gast).

    EXMC) in the host monkey cells compared to cells from control non-chimeric

    pectively.

    t enrichment p values (ïżœlog10 transformed) for up- and downregulated DEGs,

    ween EPI-EPI, EPI-HYP, and EPI-EXMC in host (Chimera-Monkey) and control

    n host (Chimera-Monkey) and control non-chimeric (Control-Monkey) monkey

    st; Pre_EPI, pre-implantation EPI; PostL_EPI, post-implantation late EPI; Gast,

     

     

    A

    C

    D

    F

    E

    B

    Figure 5. Developmental trajectory of chimeric human EPI-like cells within monkey embryos

    (A) t-SNE plot of EPI cells at different sublineages. Cells are colored by cell origins and designated as ICM, Pre_EPI, PostE_EPI, PostL_EPI, and Gast. Cells of

    ‘‘Control-Human 1’’ derive from dataset ‘‘Human-1’’ (Zhou et al., 2019). Cells of ‘‘Control-Monkey 1’’ derive from dataset ‘‘Monkey-1’’ (Niu et al., 2019). Cells of

    ‘‘Control-Monkey 2’’ derive from dataset ‘‘Monkey-2’’ (Nakamura et al., 2016). Lower right: single cells are colored according to embryonic stages.

    (B) RNA velocity analysis of chimeric human (chimera-human) and host monkey (chimera-monkey) cells, respectively (left two panels). The amplitude and di-

    rection of the vector reflects a transcriptional trajectory. Slingshot analysis of chimeric human EPI-like cells and hEPSCs (third panel). The curves and arrows

    indicate the potential development trajectory. Cells are colored by cell lineages.

    (C) Pseudotime alignment between control and chimeric cells. Left and right panels show the pseudotime alignment of chimeric cells with control human and host

    monkey cells, respectively.

    (legend continued on next page)

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Manuscript

Figure ___. Membrane transport characteristics of Xenopus laevis oocytes transformed with clone#3992. mRNA encoding orf3992 was transcribed in vitro from plasmid pEP(clone#3992) and transformed into Xenopus laevis oocytes. (A) Sugar transport into oocytes in the presence and absence of 10 ”M carbonyl cyanide m-chlorophenyl hydrazone (CCCP). Extracellular medium supplemented with 1 mM sugar was left with oocytes for 1 hour and then intracellular concentration of sugar was measured. (B) Measurement of beemolulose transport kinetics into oocytes in the presence of different sugars.

 

 

 

Figure ____. Modifications to orf3992 within A. candicus. (A) Schematic showing CRISPR/Cas9 with guide RNA (gRNA) that targets orf3992 co-transformed into A. candicus. (B) Effect of CRISPR/Cas9 disruption of orf3992 gene on A. candicus growth characteristics. Sugars were added to minimal growth medium and A. candicus was grown for 12 hours in minimal medium plus sugar. (C) Schematic showing transformation of expression plasmid encoding orf3992 into A. candicus. (D) Effect of orf3992 overexpression on A. candicus growth in minimal medium plus sugars.

 

Figure ____. Screening Austral candicus cDNA library. (A) cDNA library preparation diagram. mRNA was extracted from A. candicus, converted to cDNA via reverse-transcription, followed by cloning into an expression plasmid with promoter constitutively active within S. cerevisiae. Following transformation of plasmid library into S. cerevisiae, 109 clones were plated onto minimal medium with all amino acids added lacking any sugar but beemolulose. Resulting colonies were picked and grown in 96-well liquid format with the same medium as used for plating colonies. Clone #3992 was one of 20 colonies that showed growth in the 96-well plate, had the most robust growth, and was chosen for further study. (B) Growth of yeast strains on different sugars. Growth was in liquid minimal medium supplemented with sugar(s) indicated. In the right panel, equimolar combinations of beemolulose plus indicated sugar were supplemented into minimal growth medium.

 

 

Figure ____. Identification and cellular localisation of ORF3992 protein. (A) Sequencing of clone #3992 reveals an open reading frame (ORF3992) of 700 amino acids long with hydropathy plotting potentially showing transmembrane domains. (B) Adding FLAG-tag to C-terminus of ORF3992 followed by transformation into yeast strain W303. (C) SDS-PAGE analysis of cytoplasm, membrane, and nucleus fractions from (-) yeast cells alone and (+) yeast cells carrying pEP(clone #3992). (D) Western blot of cytoplasm, membrane, and nucleus fractions from (-) yeast cells alone and (+) yeast cells carrying pEP(clone #3992). Probed with a rabbit anti-FLAG tag primary antibody, followed by anti-rabbit secondary antibody, and visualised with enhanced chemiluminescence (ECL) reagent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. Sugar

0

1750

3500 Tr

an sp

or t R

at e

(p m

ol /m

in /o

oc yt

e)

A ra

bi no

se

X yl

os e

B ee

m ol

ul os

e

La ct

os e

F ru

ct os

e

R ha

m no

se

M an

no se

S uc

ro se

G lu

co se

CCCP (10 ”M)

Control A.

Substrate 1 Substrate 2 Km (mM) Vmax (pmols/min/oocyte)

Beemolulose – 20 ± 1 3499 ± 380 Beemolulose Glucose 22 ± 2 3298 ± 350 Beemolulose Mannose 21 ± 1 3507 ± 373 Beemolulose Rhamnose 102 ± 5 3445 ± 401

Beemolulose Transport Characteristics

 

B.

Sugar

0

1750

3500

T

r

a

n

s

p

o

r

t

 

R

a

t

e

(

p

m

o

l

/

m

i

n

/

o

o

c

y

t

e

)

A

r

a

b

i

n

o

s

e

X

y

l

o

s

e

B

e

e

m

o

l

u

l

o

s

e

L

a

c

t

o

s

e

F

r

u

c

t

o

s

e

R

h

a

m

n

o

s

e

M

a

n

n

o

s

e

S

u

c

r

o

s

e

G

l

u

c

o

s

e

CCCP (10 ”M)

Control

A.

Substrate 1Substrate 2Km (mM)Vmax (pmols/min/oocyte)

Beemolulose- 20 ± 1 3499 ± 380

BeemoluloseGlucose22 ± 2 3298 ± 350

BeemoluloseMannose 21 ± 13507 ± 373

BeemoluloseRhamnose102 ± 5 3445 ± 401

Beemolulose Transport Characteristics

 

A.

La ct

os e

R ha

m no

se

B ee

m ol

ul os

e

X yl

os e

M an

no se

F ru

ct os

e

S uc

ro se

G lu

co se

N on

e

Sugar added to minimal medium

0

Δorf3992 Wild-type

100

150

G ro

w th

(% )

C.

B.

pEP(clone #3992)

La ct

os e

R ha

m no

se

B ee

m ol

ul os

e

X yl

os e

M an

no se

F ru

ct os

e

S uc

ro se

G lu

co se

N on

e

Sugar added to minimal medium

0

pEP(clone#3992) Wild-type

100

200

G ro

w th

(% )

Cas9+ gRNA

orf3992

D.

 

A.

L

a

c

t

o

s

e

R

h

a

m

n

o

s

e

B

e

e

m

o

l

u

l

o

s

e

X

y

l

o

s

e

M

a

n

n

o

s

e

F

r

u

c

t

o

s

e

S

u

c

r

o

s

e

G

l

u

c

o

s

e

N

o

n

e

Sugar added to minimal medium

0

Δorf3992

Wild-type

100

150

G

r

o

w

t

h

 

(

%

)

C.

B.

pEP(clone #3992)

L

a

c

t

o

s

e

R

h

a

m

n

o

s

e

B

e

e

m

o

l

u

l

o

s

e

X

y

l

o

s

e

M

a

n

n

o

s

e

F

r

u

c

t

o

s

e

S

u

c

r

o

s

e

G

l

u

c

o

s

e

N

o

n

e

Sugar added to minimal medium

0

pEP(clone#3992)

Wild-type

100

200

G

r

o

w

t

h

 

(

%

)

Cas9+

gRNA

orf3992

D.

 

A ra

bi no

se

X yl

os e

La ct

os e

R ha

m no

se

A ra

bi no

se

X yl

os e

+ Beemolulose

B ee

m ol

ul os

e

La ct

os e

F ru

ct os

e

R ha

m no

se

M an

no se

M an

no se

S uc

ro se

S uc

ro se

G lu

co se

G lu

co se

109 independent clones

Minimal medium + beemolulose

B.

A.

Sugar(s) added to minimal medium

0

Yeast + pEP(clone #3992)

Yeast

50

100

G ro

w th

(% )

mRNA

Saccharomyces cerevisae

Austral candicus

Expression Plasmid (pEP)

cDNA

Yeast + pEP(clone #3992)

Yeast

 

A

r

a

b

i

n

o

s

e

X

y

l

o

s

e

L

a

c

t

o

s

e

R

h

a

m

n

o

s

e

A

r

a

b

i

n

o

s

e

X

y

l

o

s

e

+ Beemolulose

B

e

e

m

o

l

u

l

o

s

e

L

a

c

t

o

s

e

F

r

u

c

t

o

s

e

R

h

a

m

n

o

s

e

M

a

n

n

o

s

e

M

a

n

n

o

s

e

S

u

c

r

o

s

e

S

u

c

r

o

s

e

G

l

u

c

o

s

e

G

l

u

c

o

s

e

10

9

independent clones

Minimal medium

+ beemolulose

B.

A.

Sugar(s) added to minimal medium

0

Yeast + pEP(clone #3992)

Yeast

50

100

G

r

o

w

t

h

 

(

%

)

mRNA

Saccharomyces

cerevisae

Austral candicus

Expression

Plasmid

(pEP)

cDNA

Yeast + pEP(clone #3992)

Yeast

 

C.

220

KDa

100 120

80

50

60

40

20

30

MW M

ar ke

r

Cytoplasm Membrane Nucleus – + – + – + D.

220

KDa

100 120

80

50

60

40

20

30

MW M

ar ke

r

Cytoplasm Membrane Nucleus – + – + – +

Western Blot 1° antibody: anti-FLAG

SDS-PAGE

pEP(clone #3992)

B.

pEP(clone #3992)

FLAG-tag

W303(pEP(clone #3992))

A.

ORF3992 Position of Protein

H yd

ro pa

th y

+3

0

+2 +1

-1 -2 -3

1 508254

N- -C

 

C.

220

KDa

100

120

80

50

60

40

20

30

M

W

 

M

a

r

k

e

r

CytoplasmMembraneNucleus

+

+

+

D.

220

KDa

100

120

80

50

60

40

20

30

M

W

 

M

a

r

k

e

r

CytoplasmMembraneNucleus

+

+

+

Western Blot

1° antibody: anti-FLAG

SDS-PAGE

pEP(clone #3992)

B.

pEP(clone #3992)

FLAG-tag

W303(pEP(clone #3992))

A.

ORF3992

Position of Protein

H

y

d

r

o

p

a

t

h

y

+3

0

+2

+1

-1

-2

-3

1

508

254

N- -C

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Genetics Worksheet

Assignment Problems: Cumulative 0350 Genetics Fall 2020 1

0350 Genetics Fall 2020 Assignment Problems: Cumulative (1) Analysis of vulval development in C. elegans has been important in understanding some key signaling pathways, some that play roles in human cancer. The vulva is the organ through which fertilized eggs leave the mother. Wild-type worms only have one vulva, but mutants have been identified that either have more than one vulva or no vulva. These include mutations in the mpk-1, lin-1, lin-39, let-23 and lin-3 genes. Below is a table that lists single or double mutants and their phenotype.

Mutant (all are homozygous mutants in the indicated gene(s))

phenotype

mpk-1 no vulva lin-1 multiple vulvas lin-3 no vulva lin-39 no vulva let-23 no vulva mpk-1 lin-1 multiple vulvas lin-3 lin-1 multiple vulvas lin-39 lin-1 no vulva let-23 lin-1 multiple vulvas

1 (1a) Who originally chose C. elegans as a model system to study genetics A: Sydney Brenner B: Francis Crick C: Seymour Benzer D: Barbara McCintock 2 (1b) What other major contribution did he make to genetics? A: Uncovered the secrets of the lac operon B: Used T4 phage rII gene frameshift mutants to show that the Genetic Code is composed of triplet codons with no commas C: Used recombination between thousands of T4 phage rII gene mutants to demonstrate that a gene is likely just a linear sequence of nucleotides D: Identified the first gene linked to a chromosome, the white gene of Drosophila

 

 

Assignment Problems: Cumulative 0350 Genetics Fall 2020 2

3 (1c) Which of the pathways below is consistent with the data (if you cannot position some genes unambiguously then they must be placed at the same position in the pathway).

4(1d) Which of the following genes is most likely to encode for a transcription factor? A: lin-3 B: let-23 C: lin-39 D: mpk-1 The following table shows where wild-type protein encoded by the genes is expressed during vulval development.

Gene Cells in which the wild-type gene is expressed

mpk-1 Vulva and cells outside lin-1 Cells outside of the vulva only lin-3 Cells outside of the vulva only lin-39 Vulva and cells outside let-23 Vulva and cells outside

5 (1e) Which gene is most likely to encode for a secreted signaling protein? A: lin-3 B: let-23 C: lin-39 D: lin-1 6 (1f) Which gene is most likely to encode for a receptor for the signaling protein you identified in (1e)? A: lin-3 B: let-23 C: lin-39 D: lin-1

 

 

Assignment Problems: Cumulative 0350 Genetics Fall 2020 3

(2) A pure breeding population of reindeers at the North Pole have red noses. Those in Finland all have black noses while those in Russia all have tan noses. To investigate the genetics of this trait, crosses were done between these pure breeding populations; the most revealing of these was a cross between the Finnish and Russian with the F1 progeny all being black, but a cross between these yielding the following: Black: 89 Tan: 41 Red: 30 7 (2a) Explain these results A: Single gene, two alleles, one incompletely dominant over the other B: Single gene, two alleles, each codominant C: Single gene, three alleles, allelic series D: Two genes, each with two alleles, one completely dominant over the other, and one gene recessively epistatic to the other 8(2b) Would all the tan offspring be pure-breeding like the ones from Russia? A: Yes B: No 9 (2c) What color would the offspring be from a cross between reindeer from the North Pole and Russia A: red B: tan C: black D: pink 10 (2d) Reindeers at the North Pole can fly while those from anywhere else cannot; the ability to fly is controlled by a single gene. A cross between reindeers from the North Pole and Finland produced F1 progeny could not fly and had black noses; these F1s were backcrossed reindeers from the North Pole resulted in following F2 progeny: Black flightless 61 Red flier 59 Black flier 39 Red flightless 41 Is the gene controlling black or red noses in Finnish/North Pole, likely to be linked to that controlling the ability to fly? (Table on last page if needed) A: Yes B: No

 

 

Assignment Problems: Cumulative 0350 Genetics Fall 2020 4

(3) A new mutation that results in eight-legged flies was isolated and was found to be recessive, the gene name was designated extra-legs, el, and the wild-type allele, el+ and the mutant, elR. The mutation was mapped approximately to a region on the 2nd chromosome that included the following known mutant markers (the mutant marker alleles are all recessive and their map position on the chromosome is indicated in the table below).

Gene Wild-type

allele (dominant)

Wild-type phenotype

Mutant marker allele

(recessive) Mutant

phenotype Map position in map units

wingless wg+ Full sized wing wgT No wing 25

orange or+ Red eyes or5 Orange eyes 37

short bristles sb+ Long bristles sbS Short bristles 52 Three crosses were set up: (i) wgT or5 elR/ wgT or5 elR x wg+ or+ el+/ wg+ or+ el+ (ii) or5 sbS elR/ or5 sbS elR x wg+ or+ el+ / wg+ or+ el+ (iii) wgT sbS elR/ wgT sbS elR x wg+ or+ el+/ wg+ or+ el+ The F1 progeny from these crosses were then crossed separately to: wgT or5 sbS elR/ wgT or5 sbS elR (i) F1 heterozygous parent: wgT or5 elR/ wg+ or+ el+ Full wing, red eyes, 6 legs 884 Full wing, orange eyes, 6 legs 46 No wing, red eyes, 6 legs 66 No wing, orange eyes, 6 legs 4 Full wing, red eyes, 8 legs 2 Full wing, orange eyes, 8 legs 23 No wing, red eyes, 8 legs 29 No wing, orange eyes, 8 legs 455 95/1509=0.629 (ii) F1 heterozygous parent: or5 sbS elR/ wg+ or+ el+ Red eyes, long bristles, 6 legs 872 Red eyes, short bristles, 6 legs 70 Orange eyes, long bristles, 6 legs 8 Orange eyes, short bristles, 6 legs 50 Red eyes, long bristles, 8 legs 26 Red eyes, short bristles, 8 legs 5 Orange eyes, long bristles, 8 legs 39 Orange eyes, short bristles, 8 legs 433 (iii) F1 heterozygous parent: wgT sbS elR/ wg+ or+ el+ Full wing, long bristles, 6 legs 736 Full wing, short bristles, 6 legs 200 No wing, long bristles, 6 legs 61 No wing, short bristles, 6 legs 14 Full wing, long bristles, 8 legs 8

 

 

Assignment Problems: Cumulative 0350 Genetics Fall 2020 5

Full wing, short bristles, 8 legs 23 No wing, long bristles, 8 legs 103 No wing, short bristles, 8 legs 322 11 (3a) Between which two marker genes is the el gene located A. wg and or B. wg and sb C. or and sb 12 (3b) What is the distance between wg and el A. 7 m.u B. 9 m.u C. 13 m.u. D. 16 m.u. 13 (3c) Is there anything unusual about the numbers of any of the classes of phenotype in the three crosses? A There are a lot more parentals that would be expected B There are a lot fewer double recombinants that would be expected C Both classes of parentals should be approximately the same but are not D The total number of recombinants is too high compared to the parentals

 

 

Assignment Problems: Cumulative 0350 Genetics Fall 2020 6

(4) If you were to generate mutations for the his gene in Salmonella gene with X-rays and with the chemicals EMS and profavine (i.e. separately) and then sequenced the gene, what might you expect to find in each case? 14 (4a) X-rays A: No sequence because the whole gene is deleted B: Point mutations C: Small insertions and deletions D: Several pyrimidine dimers 15 (4b) EMS A: No sequence because the whole gene is deleted B: Point mutations C: Small insertions and deletions D: Several pyrimidine dimers 16 (4c) Proflavine A: No sequence because the whole gene is deleted B: Point mutations C: Small insertions and deletions D: Several pyrimidine dimers 17 (4d) Which of these mutations might be useful to use in the Ames test? A: All three B: X-ray only C: EMS only D: EMS and proflavine 18 (4e) As well as a mutation in the his gene, the strain of Salmonella used in the Ames test also usually carries a mutation in what other gene? A: Antibiotic resistance B: uvrA or uvrB C: DNA polI D: RND efflux pump

 

 

Assignment Problems: Cumulative 0350 Genetics Fall 2020 7

(5) Different temperature sensitive mutants of E. coli and yeast in genes encoding proteins involved in transcription were grown at the permissive temperature for several generations and while still actively growing the temperature was raised to the restrictive temperature. After raising temperature, the synthesis of new RNA was assessed using radioactively labeled nucleotides. Assume the mutations completely inactivate the proteins at the restrictive temperature and that function of the mutant protein was abolished instantly temperature was raised. What would happen to the level of new RNA synthesized (i.e. radioactive incorporation into RNA) in the following mutants after raising the temperature?) A Transcription would stop instantly B Some RNA would still be synthesized but will be reduced and eventually stop C Levels would probably increase D No effect on the level of transcription 19 (5a) Sigma factor (E. coli) 20 (5b) Subunit ß of RNA polymerase (E. coli) 21 (5c) RNA Pol II (yeast) 22 (5d) Rho protein (E. coli)

 

 

Assignment Problems: Cumulative 0350 Genetics Fall 2020 8

(6) Hedgehog (Hh) is a secreted signaling protein that activates the Hh signaling pathway in responding cells resulting in the activation of Hh-target genes that can control cell activities such as proliferation. The pathway is inappropriately activated in some cancers. Key proteins in the Hh pathway are as follows: Hedgehog (Hh): secreted signaling protein found outside cells Patched (Ptc): transmembrane receptor, externally portions of the protein bind Hh, other regions bind to Smo. Note, Ptc is the Hh receptor, but unlike most receptors its activity is inactivated by its ligand, Hh. Smoothened (Smo): transmembrane protein that positively regulates the Hh pathway by binding and inactivating Cos2. Smo activity is inhibited by Ptc. Costal-2 (Cos2): cytoplasmic protein that has 3 separate binding domains. It binds to Smo and that blocks its activity. It binds to GSK/PKA and that forms an active complex. It binds to Gli when the latter active complex forms and that results the processing of Gli to the repressor form. GSK3 and PKA: kinases that phosphorylate Gli to result in its partial degradation Glioblastoma (Gli) Transcription factor that can act as a repressor or activator of transcription. In the absence of Hh, it is partially degraded to a repressor form. In the presence of Hh this does not happen and the full length form is an activator. Absence of Hh: Ptc inactivates Smo by binding to it and preventing it interacting with Cos2, which then binds to Gli, and GSK3 and PKA. The latter 2 phosphorylate Gli and this targets it for partial degradation. The smaller from of Gli enters the nucleus, binds to Hh-target genes and represses their expression. Presence of Hh: Hh binds to its receptor which is Ptc and this prevents Ptc from inactivating Smo, which can now bind Cos2 and preventing GSK3 and PKA from phosphorylating Gli. Gli then remains full length and can enter the nucleus and bind to and activate Hh-target genes. (N.B. some liberties have been taken with pathway to simply the question so don’t take it all completely literally)

 

 

 

Assignment Problems: Cumulative 0350 Genetics Fall 2020 9

23 (6a) Which of the simple genetic pathways below is correct based on the information above.

The table below lists mutations in different regions of proteins in Ptc, Smo and Cos2 in the Hh pathway. (Determine whether the pathway will be on or off in each mutant, i.e. is the gene G is expressed in a homozygous mutant. (c) Determine if the mutation will be a simple loss of function (SLF), possibly a dominant negative (DN) or probably a gain of function (GOF). (0.33 points each) To work out answers to (c) you need to first determine the loss of function phenotype for the gene in question (one mutation of each is obviously a SLF), then determine if each of the other mutations in the same gene would result in the same phenotype or not – if the same then the mutation is either SLF or DN, if the opposite then it would be a GOF. To work out if it is SLF or DN you have to consider what would happen in a heterozygote: can the mutant protein interfere with wild-type protein in some way? Could it block the wild-type protein or would it compete with the wild-type for a protein the wild-type needs to interact with? Note, a mutation in one part of a protein could be DN, while mutation in a different part could be GOF. Hint
only one of the mutants is predicted to act as a DN

 

Protein Mutation (region inactivated) (b) Is pathway always on or off in homozygous mutant (i.e. is gene G expressed)

(c) Is the mutation SLF, possibly DN or probably GOF?

Ptc Deletion of gene 24 6b 32 6j

 

 

Assignment Problems: Cumulative 0350 Genetics Fall 2020 10

Smo Deletion of gene 25 6c 33 6k

Cos2 Deletion of gene 26 6d 34 6l

Ptc Hh binding domain 27 6e 35 6m

Ptc Smo binding domain 28 6f 36 6n

Smo Ptc binding domain 29 6g 37 6o

Cos2 Smo binding domain 30 6h 38 6p

Cos2 Gli binding domain 31 6i 39 6q

24-32 (6b- 6i) Determine whether the pathway will be on or off in each mutant, i.e. is the gene G is expressed in a homozygous mutant. A = On B = Off 33-41 (6j- 6q) Determine if the mutation will be a simple loss of function (SLF), possibly a dominant negative (DN) or probably a gain of function (GOF). A = SLF B = DN C = GOF To work out answers you need to first determine the loss of function phenotype for the gene in question (one mutation of each is obviously a SLF), then determine if each of the other mutations in the same gene would result in the same phenotype or not – if the same then the mutation is either SLF or DN, if the opposite then it would be a GOF. Remember, a GOF mutation is only in relation to the function of the protein itself, not as to whether the pathway is activated by the mutation. So for a gene that functions to inhibit the pathway a SLF mutation will result in the pathway being on all the time, but a GOF would result in the pathway being off all the time. To work out if it is SLF or DN you have to consider what would happen in a heterozygote: can the mutant protein interfere with wild-type protein in some way? Could it block the wild-type protein or would it compete with the wild-type for a protein the wild-type needs to interact with? Note, a mutation in one part of a protein could result in a DN mutation, while mutation in a different part could be GOF. Hint
only one of the mutants is predicted to act as a DN 40 (6r) Based on what you know about other signaling pathways, why might a GSK3 mutant have more complicated phenotypes than would be predicted based on its role in Hh signaling? (2 points) A. It is redundant

 

 

Assignment Problems: Cumulative 0350 Genetics Fall 2020 11

B. It is also involved another pathway – in the Wnt pathway – so loss of GSK3 would affect both pathways C. It is haploinsufficient D. Mutations are always dominant negative

 
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"