This article discusses the equal role that genes from a mother and father play in the genetic make-up of their offspring. Scientists have been aware for some time that around one hundred, of what they call, imprinted genes, existed. The process of imprinting, in which a copy of a particular gene from either the mother or father is inactivated, accounts for asymmetry of maternal versus paternal genes in a fetus. An example of imprinting is found in the case of the gene, insulinlike growth factor-2, which promotes fetus growth. These gene is inactive in the genome the fetus receives from its mother, but active in the genome from the father. The explanation for this is that a mother is going to give birth to many fetuses in her life time, and her interest lies in equally distributing her resources to all of her children. The father on the other hand is only interested in the survival of his one child because the other children the female gives birth to may have different fathers. Thus, the female does not have enough insulinlike growth factor-2 to distribute to all her offspring, so that gene is imprinted in females. Just last month however, Christopher Gregg and Catherine Dulac of Harvard found evidence that nearly 1,300 imprinted genes exist, which is about 1% of a human genome. In order to come to this conclusion, these scientists tracked the transcription of recognizably different male and female DNA sequences in mice. They found many unexpected imprinted genes and an abundance of active maternal genes in the brain of an embryo in comparison to the abundance of active paternal genes in an adult brain. Another pattern they found was that there were sex differences of the specific imprinted genes in certain regions of the brain. These differences may provide a mechanism by which nature chooses the sex of the fetus. The general conclusion that this article came to was that there is, “a conflict of interest” between the maternal and paternal genes in a fetus which can lead to asymmetrical sharing of genes.
The observations and explanations revealed in this article will have a large impact on humanity. For example, this may lead to the discovery of causes of autism and other such diseases as disastrous results could occur if one copy of a gene was mutated and the other was inactive. They also might lead to the unearthing of explanations for sexual differences and psychiatric diseases. If we can locate the site of the genetic differences that cause autism, multiple sclerosis, and others, hopefully scientists and medical researchers will be able to find cures or means to prevent these diseases.
This article did an excellent job of providing background information for the newly published research it is discussing. I knew nothing about imprinted genes, but after reading this article I was able to thoroughly discuss both the recent findings, what led to these discoveries, and the impact they will have in the future. Something that the author should have done differently is to better organize the information. I found that in my attempt to summarize the article, I was searching it from top to bottom in order to make sure that I had all the information I needed for one point before moving on to the next. The article would be much more coherent if it was not broken down into so many paragraphs because they are often discussing the same topic but it takes the reader some time to realize that because of the break in the text.
Bibliography
Wade, Nicholas. "Tug of War Pits Genes of Parents in the Fetus." New York Times 13 Sept. 2010, Science sec. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 04 Oct. 2010.
This review was effective in the way it presented the concept of imprinted genes. There are many articles and reviews which don’t give a lot of background information and jump right into a complex topic. Heather, however, did a good job introducing what imprinted genes are in a clear manner. I also like the use of specific examples which back up her explanation of this topic. She includes cases of these imprinting genes in both humans and animals. This gives the reader a sense of the wide scope of this topic. She also utilizes quantitative examples, such as percentages, which help make this review much more effective. In general, the first paragraph is written in a very organized manner. The ideas are coherent and arranged well. All these writing elements come together to give the reader a very holistic view on the subject of imprinted genes.
ReplyDeleteIf I would change anything about this review, I would add a small piece of background information on Mendel’s laws of inheritance. While I am somewhat familiar with the laws of gene inheritance, it would have been nice to be refreshed on this topic. It would have allowed to me to understand the concept of imprinted genes even more. Also, it would make the review more interesting if there was more elaboration in the second paragraph. It would be more intriguing to read about the actual way imprinted genes are linked to the diseases that are mentioned. Other than that, this review was very well written.
What I found impressive about this story is how widespread of an effect it may have on humanity. I had not heard of imprinted genes before reading this, and yet it seems that they play a major factor in inheritance and biological diseases. It is interesting how autism, multiple sclerosis, and gender can all be affected by this phenomenon. Clearly imprinted genes play a major role in the world of biology.
Kirsten Noonan
ReplyDeleteThere were a number of great aspects to Heather’s review on Imprinted Genes. The best facet of her assessment was how she summarized the article. Towards the end of her review, she stated how she wishes the author made his article more coherent, as it was difficult to follow, which I definitely agree with her position. Fortunately, Heather’s synopsis had a controlled fact organization and development, making it easier for the reader to understand. I also appreciated the fact that she related this somewhat unknown, at least unfamiliar to me, topic to diseases such as autism. She also explained how imprinted genes could beneficially affect multiple sexual differences and psychiatric diseases. Finally, I appreciated her review of the article. The comments she suggested for the article’s improvement were very truthful, and had the author applied them, the article would be easier to follow.
I think Heather could have gone into more detail about how imprinted genes affect autism. Autism is an intriguing disease, and I believe that if she were to elaborate on the connection imprinted genes has to autism, it would connect more with the reader. Finally, I would have liked to see her connect the effects that imprinted genes have on people. While they can cause differences and diseases, such as autism, it would have been nice it she explained why imprinted genes are so beneficial to humanity. Overall, however, the review was very well written.
I was impressed by the fact that I heard of something I never even knew existed before. I now have an understanding of what an “imprinted gene” it. Nearly 1,300 imprinted genes exist, and they could help prevent currently untreatable diseases, which is pretty remarkable.
Katherine Bopp
ReplyDeleteHether presented a great aspect of how theses findings can help with the cure of autism and other fatal gene diseases. That if they could find the exact place where the gene mutation went wrong then they could then work on how to stop this mutation from occurring. This is where she explained very well how the discovery of man unexpected imprinted genes and an abundance of active maternal genes in the brain of an embryo can help cure these diseases.
Heather also presented very clearly the act of imprinting. She described how the process of this particular gene from either the mother or father is inactivated, accounts for asymmetry of maternal versus paternal genes in a fetus. She also gave clear examples of imprinted genes, which helped understand the topic of imprinting.
Heather also brought up how fetus’s receives more inactive genes from its mother than its father. How this is because the men only need to worry about one child surviving, while the woman will have many other children, but with different fathers.
One thing that Heather may want to work on is the context of the writing. She may want to summarize it in simpler words or explaining what some words mean.
She may also not want to repeat things as often as they did. Maybe only state once or twice how this can help cure autism not three times, or state what other diseases that it can help cure. Otherwise I thought that Heather did an excellent job explaining the article and its true context.
One very interested thing that I learned from this article is that there were sex differences of the specific imprinted genes in certain regions of the brain.
This review was extremely well written and was an accurate synopsis of the article. It was very well written in the sense that it allowed the reader to fully understand what the article is saying. It was not just facts laid-out as a grocery list; instead Heather broke down the information into understandable sentences. It is also full of specifics from the original article. There are quantitative examples that prove that the reviewer knows what she is talking about. The information is not just put in and put into coherent sentences, but is backed up by statistics that mean something. Lastly, the wrap-up of the article was very interesting and important. It explained to readers what was summarized, and how that article’s author could improve his work. She proved to the readers that she put effort into her synopsis.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the review was very well written, but it could be improved. For example, it was hard to understand what specifically imprinting was. I think it would be beneficial for Heather to directly state the correct definition of imprinting. This way whenever the reader was confused as to how the mother and father contributed to the genetic make-up of their offspring, it would be simple to look back and see the impact of imprinting. Also, she mentions that through this new research, scientists may be able to find that cause and cure for diseases such as autism and multiple sclerosis. I would like to know how researchers are approaching that knew task. However, overall the review was done very well.
I found it interesting that there is an abundance of active maternal genes in the brain of an embryo compared to the abundance of active paternal genes in an adult brain. I never knew that as children develop they have an abundance of active genes passed down from their fathers compared to their mothers.
Brad Davies
ReplyDeleteHeathers review of the article was excellent. I believe she did a great job capturing the information of the article as well as giving her thoughtful opinion of the article in context to our world.
The first thing I liked about her article was that she included a summary. heather supplied a clear summary of the article, which was about a relatively confusing topic. She made the basic concept of maternal versus paternal rolls in genetics fairly easy to understand. I also like how she back up the summary with some hard data. For example, I found the discovery of 1300 imprinted genes within the human genome to be fascinating as well as substantial. Aside from the summary, I felt heathers second paragraph, which was geared more towards the real world application of the recent discoveries, to be very good. She gave the reader an understanding of why these newly discovered genes have any importance. These genes have the potential to reveal the answer for some of our modern day medical mysteries, such as the cause of autism.
Although it was a well written, there were a few places in the article that could have used improvement. One area I felt needed revision was the terminologies used throughout the article. While she did define what they were in the summary, heather could have elaborated on imprinted genes. I wasn't entirely sure as to what they were as I read through her review. I felt heather also could have expanded on the effect these genes will have on autism. What exactly do these genes reveal that will allow scientists to better understand autism? She does briefly explain how scientist can better understand autism, but I felt she could have gone more in-depth.
I found the article in general to be interesting. I never realized that there was an asymmetric distribution of maternal and paternal genes within a fetus. I can see how such a "conflict of interest" can have a significant effect on the fetus and basically all human beings.
I felt that Heather sufficiently summarized the article. She was able to take what at a glance seemed to be a very complicated and complex topic and simplified it. Heather successfully made the topic of imprinted genes more understandable in her summary. I also liked how Heather used specific examples from the article in her summary. This allowed for the reader to acquire actual facts while at the same time being able to understand their context. Also, towards the end of her summary, I liked that Heather connected the discovery to how it can be applied in the scientific world.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I felt that Heather's summary was very well written, there were a few things that could have been improved. First of all, I would have liked if Heather had given a specific definition for imprinting so that the reader could more easily understand what its most simple meaning is. I also felt that she could have told the reader a little more how imprinted genes had an impact on certain diseases since I find that to be a very interesting concept.
Overall I found this article very interesting for much of it was new to me. Yet, the main fact that stood out to me, once I further understood what imprinted genes, was that they had such a profound effect on things such as gender and many diseases that have been often spoken of.
i liked this!
ReplyDeleteHeather’s review presented very impressive points. The way she summarized the article was the best factor of her assessment. The presented the concept of imprinted genes in a way that it could be easily understood. Many reviews or articles are not interesting or easily understood, but heather did a great job of getting the point across. She knows what she is talking about. She clearly illustrated the process of a particular gene from either the father or the mother is inactivated and how it accounts for asymmetry of maternal versus paternal genes in a fetus.
ReplyDeleteThis review was very well written hover there were a few things that could use work. I felt that Heather could have further explained imprinted genes. One of the areas of this she could’ve gone into more dept is on how imprinted genes impact autism. Autism, a compelling disease, is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior. By explaining more about the imprinted genes effect on autism, the understanding of how they help scientists who study autism could be better.
I found that the review, overall, was very interesting and well written. I more about imprinted genes and their affects. I also further understand that as children are developing they have a plentiful supply of active genes derived from their fathers and are compared to the mothers.
John Gray
ReplyDeleteHeather did a good job of reviewing the article. The first thing she did well was not only that she adequately explained what the article was about, but also how she paced her review. By first talking about how scientists have previously only discovered around a hundred imprinted genes. Later in the review however, she stated how the article announced the discovery of nearly 1,200 new genes. This juxtaposition of a small number and a big number makes the review more exciting. Another thing Heather did well was her recapitulation of how the scientists found the new genes. The way Heather discussed the scientists’ methods was not as murky as it might have been and was, in fact, quite easily understood. Finally, Heather made very clear the importance of this find. After reading her second paragraph I feel strongly that the research in these new genes should be funded and continued.
Despite the overall merits of the article, there were a few things that could have been done better. Her prose could have been a little better. There are quite a few grammatical errors in the review that detract from its overall impact. She also could have been a little more specific when she was talking about the social impact of the information uncovered in the article. For instance, She shouldn’t only have mentioned that we could locate the site of genetic differences that cause autism and multiple sclerosis, but what this means for the world. If scientists locate these sites, what will they be able to do with them?
The article was quite interesting, especially the part about the distribution of genes within a fetus. I had never thought that there was an asymmetric distribution of genes within a fetus. I found the explanation for this phenomenon to be extremely interesting and quite logical. I like when things work out logically, it’s neat.