Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

The difference between "naturally occuring" DNA and cDNA, do you know it?

Posted by on Jun. 16, 2013 at 12:03 AM
  • 37 Replies
And if so, what effect, if any, will be felt in biotech as a result of the recent Supreme Court ruling?
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by on Jun. 16, 2013 at 12:03 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
stormcris
by Christy on Jun. 16, 2013 at 12:30 AM

This one is a bit of a quandary for me. I am not sure they have every naturally occurring DNA cataloged or that it is even possible to have them all cataloged. I am also not sure that even if a lab creates a synthetic gene that it would not occur naturally through some mutation via evolution. I think it is good for them to patent and thus hold responsible that which a lab creates. I do not think that nature should every be patented because it holds enormous ramifications for the progress of science. However, I am wondering how they will handle a cDNA that is cataloged as natural in the future. Will it nullify the patent? Will it be grandfathered in? 

Then, I wonder, if used as a correction in the body and it causes a mutation, does that further mutation belong to them under that patent or will it be categorized as natural?

I have a feeling that this is somewhat playing with fire, which no one has taken the opportunity to investigate where or not it can and will rage out of control.

coronado25
by Silver Member on Jun. 16, 2013 at 3:14 AM
Complementary dioxyribonucleic acid (cDNA) is made by using the natural mechanisims that create messenger RNA (the acid that leaves the nucleus to tell the rest of the cell what it needs to express out of the entire body of a gene) to create a strand of DNA that is identical to the gene only lacking the parts unnecessary for expression(introns or, as pop science has called it "junk DNA"). So I do not understand why, if the federal Supreme Court withdrew patent rights for naturally occuring genes, that it did not also withdraw patenting rights for cDNA. Afterall, this is what a naturally occuring gene is converted to before insertion into a bacteria, or, any cloning procedure, or any kind of gene transfer application that I can think of... mind you, I am not a scientist, but I would really like to understand more. As it stands, I feel that this patent arrangement does not protect any part of gene expression usage from being commercially exploited.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
loverbug75
by on Jun. 16, 2013 at 3:17 AM
2 moms liked this
I always look for news radio when driving too work.... Anyhow.... I heard they are putting the hammer down on genetic patenting both synthetic and natural.


Quoting stormcris:

This one is a bit of a quandary for me. I am not sure they have every naturally occurring DNA cataloged or that it is even possible to have them all cataloged. I am also not sure that even if a lab creates a synthetic gene that it would not occur naturally through some mutation via evolution. I think it is good for them to patent and thus hold responsible that which a lab creates. I do not think that nature should every be patented because it holds enormous ramifications for the progress of science. However, I am wondering how they will handle a cDNA that is cataloged as natural in the future. Will it nullify the patent? Will it be grandfathered in? 

Then, I wonder, if used as a correction in the body and it causes a mutation, does that further mutation belong to them under that patent or will it be categorized as natural?

I have a feeling that this is somewhat playing with fire, which no one has taken the opportunity to investigate where or not it can and will rage out of control.


coronado25
by Silver Member on Jun. 16, 2013 at 3:21 AM
It is not so much playing with fire as it is playing with politics and logistics. And it will continue to do so until work a day folks get interested in the mechanisms of gene expression on the molecular ...invisible... level. Only then will we begin to have any grip on the future of genetic engineering. Until then, even supreme court justices will be swayed and flattered in this arena that touches every part of our lives. I really wish molecular sciences were begun in kindergarten.


Quoting stormcris:

This one is a bit of a quandary for me. I am not sure they have every naturally occurring DNA cataloged or that it is even possible to have them all cataloged. I am also not sure that even if a lab creates a synthetic gene that it would not occur naturally through some mutation via evolution. I think it is good for them to patent and thus hold responsible that which a lab creates. I do not think that nature should every be patented because it holds enormous ramifications for the progress of science. However, I am wondering how they will handle a cDNA that is cataloged as natural in the future. Will it nullify the patent? Will it be grandfathered in? 

Then, I wonder, if used as a correction in the body and it causes a mutation, does that further mutation belong to them under that patent or will it be categorized as natural?

I have a feeling that this is somewhat playing with fire, which no one has taken the opportunity to investigate where or not it can and will rage out of control.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Jun. 16, 2013 at 3:33 AM
1 mom liked this
Is this where you pretend to know all about DNA but really are copying and pasting (or paraphrasing) without sourcing?
coronado25
by Silver Member on Jun. 16, 2013 at 3:34 AM
I don't know who or what you mean when you say "they" but there are a myriad of companies (no pun intended I swear LOL) that create and market cDNA for assays and other lab use...are these cDNAs already patented? How does the cDNA of a particular gene differ from one cDNA developer to the next? If cDNA is merely gDNA sans introns and only the intronless version of the gene is useful for most biotech applications then how are cDNA patent rights any different than rights over a naturally occuring gene? I don't know the answers, but I want to find out.


Quoting stormcris:

This one is a bit of a quandary for me. I am not sure they have every naturally occurring DNA cataloged or that it is even possible to have them all cataloged. I am also not sure that even if a lab creates a synthetic gene that it would not occur naturally through some mutation via evolution. I think it is good for them to patent and thus hold responsible that which a lab creates. I do not think that nature should every be patented because it holds enormous ramifications for the progress of science. However, I am wondering how they will handle a cDNA that is cataloged as natural in the future. Will it nullify the patent? Will it be grandfathered in? 

Then, I wonder, if used as a correction in the body and it causes a mutation, does that further mutation belong to them under that patent or will it be categorized as natural?

I have a feeling that this is somewhat playing with fire, which no one has taken the opportunity to investigate where or not it can and will rage out of control.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Jun. 16, 2013 at 3:34 AM
1 mom liked this
Quoting coronado25:


The difference between "naturally occuring" DNA and cDNA, do you know it?

The DNA in the regions of our chromosomes that we call "genes" generally encodes for proteins, which is does so via RNA.

However RNA is amazing stuff.  It can also form 'machines' such a catalysts, it can carry out basic replication operations itself, and it can turn back into DNA (under the right circumstances).   This is how the information from retroviruses end up back in the host's DNA.

And, if you artifically construct a length of this sort of RNA (rather than relying upon a virus to do it), you can use it to synthesise DNA of your choice.   These fragments are known as complementary DNA, or cDNA.

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Jun. 16, 2013 at 3:37 AM
Quoting kailu1835:

Is this where you pretend to know all about DNA but really are copying and pasting (or paraphrasing) without sourcing?

I wouldn't claim to know "all" about DNA, but I did write about this stuff back in 2011, in my journal:

science_spot (1/4)

science_spot (2/4)

science_spot (3/4)  <-- this bit in particular

science_spot (4/4)

coronado25
by Silver Member on Jun. 16, 2013 at 3:39 AM
Eh? I know very little and once again do not have a fancy phone or a laptop so must work with the little bits leftover from labwork and classes in my brain...source it yourself in a textbook...do you need to post a source for stuff you have in your head?? why do you always have to be so sassy with me...you don't want to discuss this stuff anyway...to you it is a polar issue.


Quoting kailu1835:

Is this where you pretend to know all about DNA but really are copying and pasting (or paraphrasing) without sourcing?

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Jun. 16, 2013 at 3:39 AM
I wasn't talking to you 😊

I've gone a few rounds with the OP before.


Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting kailu1835:

Is this where you pretend to know all about DNA but really are copying and pasting (or paraphrasing) without sourcing?

I wouldn't claim to know "all" about DNA, but I did write about this stuff back in 2011, in my journal:

science_spot
(1/4)

science_spot
(2/4)

science_spot
(3/4)
  <-- this bit in particular

science_spot
(4/4)


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN