nicholasmaurer wrote:Does anyone care to offer an opinion on the distinction between "molecular consequences of mutations" (regional/state topic) and "mutations" (national-only topic)? I am very unclear on the distinction they intend to make. It would seem to me that it is near impossible to discussion the consequences of mutations without understanding the mutations themselves... Does this mean it's unfair to ask the definition of a point mutation, but perfectly acceptable to ask about the consequences of a point mutation?
izzanom wrote:Can anyone explain how to find additions and deletions on karyotypes?
nicholasmaurer wrote:Does anyone care to offer an opinion on the distinction between "molecular consequences of mutations" (regional/state topic) and "mutations" (national-only topic)?
daycd wrote:nicholasmaurer wrote:Does anyone care to offer an opinion on the distinction between "molecular consequences of mutations" (regional/state topic) and "mutations" (national-only topic)?
I would think that consequences of a mutation relate to function. So you could think in terms of loss and gain (No protein or more protein; no RNA or more RNA). Obviously different types of mutation can lead to similar changes in function. For example, a deletion, an insertion or a point mutation could lead to complete loss of function.
jaspattack wrote:Molecular consequences of mutations likely refers to specifically the consequences, and mutations likely includes the types and causes of mutations (while still covering the consequences). The rules for Heredity also mention mutations as a national topic. Still feels a little odd that the types and causes aren't as important, but I'm not the one who wrote the rules.
nicholasmaurer wrote:jaspattack wrote:Molecular consequences of mutations likely refers to specifically the consequences, and mutations likely includes the types and causes of mutations (while still covering the consequences). The rules for Heredity also mention mutations as a national topic. Still feels a little odd that the types and causes aren't as important, but I'm not the one who wrote the rules.
Yes, but how are you supposed to discuss the consequences of mutations without discussing the mutations themselves?
venules wrote:On a similar note, for "human karyotype analysis for nondisjunction disorders", would that focus solely on identification/consequences or would it also broach the causes?
pikachu4919 wrote:venules wrote:On a similar note, for "human karyotype analysis for nondisjunction disorders", would that focus solely on identification/consequences or would it also broach the causes?
Again, we don't know exactly what the rules committee intended with the way they wrote those rules, unless rules clarifications get submitted/answered/posted or unless someone from the life sciences committee cares to pop up on the forums and explain. In my personal opinion I think there's a good chance that people who write tests for Designer Genes will probably cover the mutations themselves because those are literally THE REASON why they exist, but again, *shrugs*
Disclaimer: the above is my opinion and may not necessarily reflect the true intention of the committee overlords.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests