why we using Zea Mayes ( corn) as ideal organism in genetic studies?
922793
Is growing fairly easy and is no sensitive with the elements. I believe there is used also the beans and peas also (not quite sure).\nDfriend:)
880801
Well for one, corn is a C4 plant.  Without corn, the world would be very different.  Moreover, a large part of the world is too warm for most C3 plants to thrive in, like the extreme tropics and all deserts.  Without C4 and CAM plants, the amount of vegetation on the Earth would be far sparser.  If this were the case, the oxygen and carbon dioxide levels on Earth would be drastically different, as would our climate.
491350
Wow, that sounds like a whole essay. One example is BT cotton which contains a toxin from the bacteria Bacillus thurengensis (spelling?), this prevents cotton plants from being eaten by boll weavils. Valuable/beneficial because the cotton can be raised without having to spray chemical insecticides on the field which can then spread into water supplies. There are another line of crops called Round-up Ready, which allow you to spray weed killer without killing the plants you're trying to grow. You could probably check out the Monsanto website and find some good info there.\nOh- another good one is Golden Rice. It contains genes to make beta carotine to prevent night blindness in children in developing countries
1024331
I apologize but all that i can come up with is one.\n\nYou could raise fruit flies (Drosphila) and relate them to Gentics. i.e. punnet sqaures, Gregory Mendel, common characteristics, principle of dominance and recessiveness, etc.\n\nif you would like me to go further into detail about this project, please e-mail me at \n\nthe_lonley_kender@yahoo.com or send me an IM on Yahoo! at the_lonley_kender or on AIM at  thelonleykender
102973
The study of genetics allows us to predict the traits that our offspring will inherit from their parents.  This allows parents to make plans for future complcations.  It also allows us to control food crops, animals breeds, and various other commerical uses.  I may also lead to the development of medications or preventitve means of treating many human diseases that are caused by genetic mutations.
980111
YOU can co relate krants anatomy(presence of chloroplasts in bundle sheath cells) and high yield of starches in rice plant It needs some research on Internet .But otherwise it is a good topic for any seminars
19403
Corn is a generic English term that predates the discovery of America and means basically "cereal grain".  In American English these days it means the specific cereal grain Zea maize, or maize,that was grown by Native Americans, and is now grown world-wide.  So if you are American, the answer is "they are the same thing".
265261
I think that to be honest GM foods are far better than standard pesticide ridden foods.  Many pesticides are highly toxic and carcinogens. \nAlso if one considers all genetic modification unnatural then what about the selective breeding of livestock which has gone on for centuries - this is effectivly re-shaping the genome of whole species.  \nIf people would be prepared to spend a small amount more money to obtain high quality locally produced organic food rather than supermarket produce from the other side of the globe grown in economically crippled countries by people who do not get paid well enough to adequatly provide for their families then GM food would not be an issue.
772472
This is pasage of biblography of my project\n\nGregor Mendel (1822-1884)\nSeung Yon Rhee \n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe theories of heredity attributed to Gregor Mendel, based on his work with pea plants, are well known to students of biology. But his work was so brilliant and unprecedented at the time it appeared that it took thirty-four years for the rest of the scientific community to catch up to it. The short monograph, Experiments with Plant Hybrids, in which Mendel described how traits were inherited, has become one of the most enduring and influential publications in the history of science. \n\nMendel, the first person to trace the characteristics of successive generations of a living thing, was not a world-renowned scientist of his day. Rather, he was an Augustinian monk who taught natural science to high school students. He was the second child of Anton and Rosine Mendel, farmers in Brunn, Moravia. Mendel's brilliant performance at school as a youngster encouraged his family to support his pursuit of a higher education, but their resources were limited, so Mendel entered an Augustinian monastery, continuing his education and starting his teaching career. \n\nMendel's attraction to research was based on his love of nature. He was not only interested in plants, but also in meteorology and theories of evolution. Mendel often wondered how plants obtained atypical characteristics. On one of his frequent walks around the monastery, he found an atypical variety of an ornamental plant. He took it and planted it next to the typical variety. He grew their progeny side by side to see if there would be any approximation of the traits passed on to the next generation. This experiment was "designed to support or to illustrate Lamarck's views concerning the influence of environment upon plants." He found that the plants' respective offspring retained the essential traits of the parents, and therefore were not influenced by the environment. This simple test gave birth to the idea of heredity. \n\nMendel's research reflected his personality. Once he crossed peas and mice of different varieties "for the fun of the thing," and the phenomena of dominance and segregation "forced themselves upon notice." He saw that the traits were inherited in certain numerical ratios. He then came up with the idea of dominance and segregation of genes and set out to test it in peas. It took seven years to cross and score the plants to the thousand to prove the laws of inheritance! From his studies, Mendel derived certain basic laws of heredity: hereditary factors do not combine, but are passed intact; each member of the parental generation transmits only half of its hereditary factors to each offspring (with certain factors "dominant" over others); and different offspring of the same parents receive different sets of hereditary factors. Mendel's work became the foundation for modern genetics. \n\nThe impact of genetic theory is no longer questioned in anyone's mind. Many diseases are known to be inherited, and pedigrees are typically traced to determine the probability of passing along an hereditary disease. Plants are now designed in laboratories to exhibit desired characteristics. The practical result of Mendel's research is that it not only changed the way we perceive the world, but also the way we live in it. \n\nI Hope u get ur answer for more halp contect on don_turtel@yahoo.com Whish u all the bet for homework-project
148909
animals can be genetically modified to produce more milk in cows. mouse is used in transgenic approach to identify teh effect of deletion in a gene locus or mutations.
752236
I think probably by accident when some ancient person dropped some in the fire ...:D\n\nhttp://www.nal.usda.gov/speccoll/images1/popcorn.html#early gives the quote below\n\n"Scholars agree that corn, and popcorn, originated in the Americas. Precisely how it originated, however, is a topic of debate. It is believed by many experts that corn was developed by centuries of breeding and crossbreeding wild grasses like teosinte. There has also been much speculation about how popcorn may have been prepared or used by the native Americans, fueled by findings of popcorn in archeological digs. "
630391
Several reasons.\n\n1) Our crop plants have been bred for the traits of being tasty and having large amounts of energy rich material in their bodies. The wild ancestors of our food crops were almost all much smaller plants and contained large amounts poisons to discourage animals from eating them. We bred them to be larger and to have no toxins so that we could eat them easily. That also makes it easy for insect pests to eat them. However things like carrotweed and onionweed for example still retain the properties of the wild forms of carrots and onions and they are very good (or bad) weeds.\n\n2) Wild plants, even weeds, don't grow in large concentrations. You might only get a patch of wild plants a few metres across, or else the plants will be scattered with only one growing every few metres. That dispersal makes it much harder for insects to find wild plants they want to eat. We plant our crops in high density and high concentration which attracts the attention of insect pests and makes them all the more damaging.\n\n3) We alter the environment of our crop plants by keeping them watered and fertilised, removing competing plants etc. That makes garden beds an ideal growing habitat for ALL plants. In contrast the shady, compacted, dry deficient environments of th natural world will only support a limited number of plant species. What that means is that there are potentially millions of species that will grow in a garden bed if they can get their seeds there. IN contrast very few species will grow in any wild habitat. Simple probability means that we are going to have more weeds in a garden bed.\n\n4) The same act of preparing favourable growing beds for crops means that the crops are healthy and lush. That makes them prime targets for insects.\n\n5) Many food and flower species are also weeds. Olive trees for example are serious weeds in Australia and blackberries are a serious weed in New Zealand. Even more flower species have become weeds. Lantana and tea tree, grown originally for their flowers, have become a serious weeds in Hawaii and Florida respectively. So it's simply not true to say that the plants we want to grow require a lot of care. Many thousands of plants that people wanted to grow have become weeds around the world.
343014
People have been manipulating the genetic makeup of all kinds of species for a long time.  Until recently, they have had to make do with regular sexual reproduction to breed into a species the qualities they value.  Lately, they can alter the genes in a lab.\n\nThis has good consequences, and could have bad ones.  But it is not different from what they have always done.\n\nWhy does no one complain people are playing god when they change the course of rivers to suit themselves, drain swamps to get rid of disease carrying bugs or to build condos on, and so on.\n\nRecently, science has genetically engineered a strain of rice that makes Vitamin A for use in South Asia, particularly India, because there is so little of the vitamin in people's diet that children are being born blind.\nI don't think any god would mind, really, do you?
621796
Transgenesis is an efficient way to add target genes that provide specific traits to a plant that were not present in the original germline. the advantages are that you can create crops that are more drought resistant, require less use of pesticides, produce a higher yield, include more nutrients, etc. The disadvatange is that by creating a new "species" of plant, you don't know if that plant will interact poorly with the environment or with people or other animals that consume it. It is interesting to note, however, that intentional genetic manipultion of plant species by humans has been underway since the dawn of agriculture, albeit by the slower means of selective breeding. New technologies are frequently intimdating, but they are usually not much worse than what is going on before and sometimes are much better for all involved.
753695
I think the two studies are very important.  Both involve a newly introduced organism into a cell, where it takes over the current cell machinery in order to benefit itself.\n\nDepending on your favorite organism, one takes over the cell's genome, and the other uses your cell as it's new embryonic yolk sac.\n\nThese are pretty impotant processes, considering in the meantime they cause tons of human pathologies.
1148799
In this time of environmental crisis, genetic engineering and other new technologies should be examined for possible flaws that indicate they might be environmentally hazardous or disruptive. On an ecological balance sheet, genetic engineering should be credited with both assets and liabilities. Consider these hits and misses in biotechnology's history:\n\n* Toxic-waste cleanup -- a hit (potentially): Genetic engineering is now addressing the problem of toxic waste site cleanups by, for instance, modifying the genes of chemical-eating bacteria in order to improve their ability to detoxify waste. With many GM bacteria at work, a toxic site might be cleaned up less expensively than by using conventional treatments. Of course, field tests must be monitored carefully to detect unforeseen problems. The GM bacteria may be shown to be excellent performers, but it is also possible that natural bacteria may have the edge over their modified brethren.\n\n* Nitrogen fixing -- a miss: Finding a way to use nitrogen-fixing bacteria more extensively has been a dream shared by many biologists. The bacteria colonize near the roots of alfalfa and other legume plants, and they provide their hosts with nitrogen obtained from the air. Corn, wheat, and other crops that do not have a symbiotic relationship with bacteria require applications of nitrogen fertilizer. Using genetic engineering, scientists tried to develop nitrogen-fixing bacteria that would live contentedly with non-legume host plants. Some experimental trials in the laboratory were somewhat promising, but field trials failed. The research was discontinued.\n\n* Safer pest control -- hits and misses: Insecticides used to protect field crops are expensive and environmentally hazardous. Geneticists have succeeded in helping plants produce their own insect-killing toxin. From the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, they obtained a toxic gene, which they cloned and then transferred to plants. Cotton and corn genetically engineered with the Bt toxin genes are able to produce their own insecticide.
632705
I think of utmost importance would be the production of grasses, which includes corn, wheat, barley, oats, etc.  Of secondmost importance would then be the ruminants such as cows which live off grass and provide the human world with most of its meat.  Thirdly would be the myriad species which are not cows which eat the grasses and seeds derived therefrom, which are in turn eaten by other animals...\n\nAdditionally, the presence of the grasses provides an anchor for water in the soil, which (as was learned in the dust-bowl of the 1930's American midwest) prevents soil erosion and drought.