Order Description

Instructions:Over the course of the last few weeks, we have looked at a number of different scenarios, as well as suspects, in the November 1963 assassination of

President John F. Kennedy. Your assignment for this midterm examination is to tell me: (1) whether there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and (2) who was behind

the conspiracy. In addition, you must present credible evidence to support your theory. This is not an “I think Bobby Kennedy was behind the assassination because he

wanted to be President” type of paper. You are to construct a logical, well-reasoned, and well-supported argument that proves your hypothesis. In short, you are

building a case (or geometric proof) so that at the end of the paper the reader will say “QED”, the mystery is solved. Each factual statement should reference a valid

source (i.e., Warren Commission Report, Crossfire, House Assassination Subcommittee Report, etc.).

Hypothesis

For each set of experiments, make sure to include appropriate controls and what results you would expect if the hypothesis is supported. This assignment is based on the information content of two papers: Kearse et al., 2011, and Kearse et al., 2013.

In order to complete the assignment, it 3 other sources will be used to develop the experimental plan requested in the assignment. Include a list of all references used for the paper.

General Hypothesis: eRpL22 family paralogues (eRpL22 and eRpL22-like) retain a conserved set of ribosomal functions, yet specify unique cellular roles in fly development and in spermatogenesis.

Question 1. What experimental approach(es) would you devise to test the specific hypothesis: that specialized ribosomes exist for differential translation of testis-specific mRNAs in Drosophila?

Note that all molecular, biochemical, genetic, and cellular reagents (e.g., DNA clones, antibodies, fly strains) available from Kearse et al. (2011, 2013) are available to you for your experimental approach. If other reagents are needed for the experiments that you devise, you must include a strategy for making those necessary reagents as well as the experimental approach for using the reagents.

Question 2. What experimental approach(es) would you devise to test the specific hypothesis that testis-specific post-translational modifications including SUMOylation and phosphorylation are required to localize eRpL22 to the nucleoplasm of meiotic spermatocytes in Drosophila?

Note that for your proposed experimental plan, you have access to a group of meiotic-arrest mutants where meiosis is incomplete. You are not required to use these mutants in your experimental plan, but this genetic approach may be useful to address the question of interest.

The following background information may be useful.

Meiotic arrest mutant analyses have been instrumental in defining key events in fly spermatogenesis. For example, spermatogenesis is arrested at the G2/M transition of meiosis I in can mutants. Chromosomes are only partially condensed and no post-meiotic cells are present in these mutants (Lin et al., 1996). soti mutants have individualization defects (Kaplan et al., 2010). Western blot analysis of testis extracts from can and soti mutants shows a decrease in accumulation of the testis-specific 55? and 55? species of eRpL22 in can mutants, but not in soti mutants (Kearse, Ph.D. thesis, 2013).

Based on the timing of defects in these mutants, it appears that testis-specific PTMs of eRpL22 occur before the individualization process but after the G2/M transition of meiosis I.

Additional mutants (can, aly5p, chc, mip40, heph2, sotisik, and cbx), with defects in a different stage of spermatogenesis are available. These mutants fall into two classes – meiotic mutants and individualization mutants. The meiotic mutants are can (Lin et al. 1996), aly5p (Lin et al., 1996), and mip40 (Beall et al., 2007). The individualization mutants are chc, (Fabrizio et al., 1998), heph2 (Robida et al., 2010) , sotisik (Kaplan et al., 2010), and cbx (Fabrizio et al., 1998).
———-
Added on 03.08.2015 20:11
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720754/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074143/

These are the two required articles. Please find 3 other sources besides these to relate to the assignment.

Hypothesis

For each set of experiments, make sure to include appropriate controls and what results you would expect if the hypothesis is supported. This assignment is based on the information content of two papers: Kearse et al., 2011, and Kearse et al., 2013.

In order to complete the assignment, it 3 other sources will be used to develop the experimental plan requested in the assignment. Include a list of all references used for the paper.

General Hypothesis: eRpL22 family paralogues (eRpL22 and eRpL22-like) retain a conserved set of ribosomal functions, yet specify unique cellular roles in fly development and in spermatogenesis.

Question 1. What experimental approach(es) would you devise to test the specific hypothesis: that specialized ribosomes exist for differential translation of testis-specific mRNAs in Drosophila?

Note that all molecular, biochemical, genetic, and cellular reagents (e.g., DNA clones, antibodies, fly strains) available from Kearse et al. (2011, 2013) are available to you for your experimental approach. If other reagents are needed for the experiments that you devise, you must include a strategy for making those necessary reagents as well as the experimental approach for using the reagents.

Question 2. What experimental approach(es) would you devise to test the specific hypothesis that testis-specific post-translational modifications including SUMOylation and phosphorylation are required to localize eRpL22 to the nucleoplasm of meiotic spermatocytes in Drosophila?

Note that for your proposed experimental plan, you have access to a group of meiotic-arrest mutants where meiosis is incomplete. You are not required to use these mutants in your experimental plan, but this genetic approach may be useful to address the question of interest.

The following background information may be useful.

Meiotic arrest mutant analyses have been instrumental in defining key events in fly spermatogenesis. For example, spermatogenesis is arrested at the G2/M transition of meiosis I in can mutants. Chromosomes are only partially condensed and no post-meiotic cells are present in these mutants (Lin et al., 1996). soti mutants have individualization defects (Kaplan et al., 2010). Western blot analysis of testis extracts from can and soti mutants shows a decrease in accumulation of the testis-specific 55? and 55? species of eRpL22 in can mutants, but not in soti mutants (Kearse, Ph.D. thesis, 2013).

Based on the timing of defects in these mutants, it appears that testis-specific PTMs of eRpL22 occur before the individualization process but after the G2/M transition of meiosis I.

Additional mutants (can, aly5p, chc, mip40, heph2, sotisik, and cbx), with defects in a different stage of spermatogenesis are available. These mutants fall into two classes – meiotic mutants and individualization mutants. The meiotic mutants are can (Lin et al. 1996), aly5p (Lin et al., 1996), and mip40 (Beall et al., 2007). The individualization mutants are chc, (Fabrizio et al., 1998), heph2 (Robida et al., 2010) , sotisik (Kaplan et al., 2010), and cbx (Fabrizio et al., 1998).
———-
Added on 03.08.2015 20:11
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720754/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074143/

These are the two required articles. Please find 3 other sources besides these to relate to the assignment.