why we using Zea Mayes ( corn) as ideal organism in genetic studies?
969459
Possibly because single genes cause single, distinct, visible results. I think the colour of the kernels can be used (red, white or yellow or a mixture of these colours) to decide if the genes are dominant or recessive. In other fruit and vegetables colour is more variable, or depends on several genes. Corn (maze) also grows faster than peas, and certainly faster than apples, and the results can be seen before the ear is ripe, so you don't have to wait as long for the results. \n\nHope this helps
556123
I don't like your teacher.  I think he/she is looking for B. genes, but then he/she should not have put chromosomes as an alternative choice.  Mendel's theory of independent assortment was only true because the genes he studied were on separate chromosomes.  It could be argued that what he was actually studying was chromosomal inheritance.
384137
Carbohydrates are used in a multitude of ways in plant molecular biology.  \n\nAs an incredibly vast type of cytosolic and plastidic compound, carbohydrates can serve as transport receptors, protein transport target markers, structural features (cell wall = alpha-cellulose) amoung MANY MANY others.\n\nAll amino acids, nucleic acids, lipids and secondary metabolites all require carbon in their skeletons.  Carbohydrates of any input form can be broken down and re built into these cellular components.
438204
the tendency towards a totally homozygotic population is a bad thing as the gene pool will shrink. this means that the population will not have certain members able to deal with the disease and so will therefore die out. A good example of this is banana plantations, where sexual reproduction has been greatly reduced in favour of the banana we all enjoy, and so there is no great genetic variation, and thus if a banana disease were to strike- the plants would most likely all die out.
1017561
Danged interesting.  I will look into this.  I have said myself that the future belongs to the best breeders of any species.  Why are the pandas and white tigers endangered and the racoon and rat thriving? Adaptability and reproduction.  It's like WHO do you think are going to inherit the earth? The little WASP couple in the gated community with one or two perfect little lily white children or the Mexican couple with eight kids who will live anywhere and do anything to survive?  Whose kids are going to be the most capable of adapting and thriving? The robust little peasants or the little hot house plants?
678927
Because of the main staple in the Asian diet. Rice is known as fan, or foundation, of the chinese diet.\n\nRice, by tself is missing essential amino acids neccesary for proper occullar muscle formation.\n\nMexicans (central americans) experienced a similar genetic affliction due to their diet consisting mainly of corn.\n\nThe disease is known as polagra. When you mix corn and rice, or rice and beans, or corn and beans (any combo, thereof), you complete the amino chain and make a protein...\n\nThe effect of polagra has wound itself into the evolutionary chain for so long that the common, modern diet has little effect of revering the occular muscle contraction.
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
122079
I recently learned that microbes can be used as research tools - instead of animals.  Often a microorganism can be found that has processes similar or identical to those higher forms of life.  Therefore, it would be immoral to use an animal for research if a microbe can be used instead.  In research, a simpler model provides more dependable results because it has less variables to account for.  Microbes are the simplest of life forms.  Also, shorter generation times and larger populations of identical individuals are characteristic of bacterial cultures, which makes them ideal for genetic studies and statistical analysis.  And finally, mocrobes are inexpensive to grow and care for and they require little space and are easy to handle and control.  Will the use of microbes completely erradicate the use of aniamls for experimentation?  Probably not, but they certainly can lessen the use of them.
397545
The reason that genetically engineered food could be dangerous is because there has been no adequate testing to ensure that extracting genes that perform an apparently useful function as part of that plant or animal is going to have the same effects if inserted into a totally unrelated species. It may be that in the long term, genetically modified food could provide us with benefits and be a safe alternative, but we cannot know that at this time due to the lack of safety testing.\n\nThe testing that has been done is often to ensure the crop grows. There has been less emphasis on testing the effects or testing the wider ecology and the associated impacts.
481137
To clarify how an alien addition and substitution lines works,For it a  greenhouse bioassay was developed that consistently ranked four small grains in their correct order of susceptibility to take-all in the field (wheat > barley > rye = oat) (4). This assay was used to evaluate several wheats that carry alien chromosomes. Single plants were grown in a 1:1 (v:v) mixture of pasteurized soil (Kennebeck silty clay loam) and vermiculite in plastic tubes (2.5 cm in diameter and 12.5 cm long). Experiments included 10 tubes per entry-treatment (inoculated or non-inoculated) per replication and 4 replications. The experimental design was a randomized split-plot with the accessions as main-plot treatments and presence or absence of inoculum as sub-plot treatments .Inoculated tubes each received three oat kernels colonized by G. graminis var. tritici introduced 1 cm below seed level .After 4 weeks at 20±5°C, fresh weights of plant parts (10 plants per treatment per replication) above the soil level were measured and losses in fresh weight calculated.\nFour sets of wheat-alien chromosome addition and substitution lines of species with resistance to take-all were obtained from the Wheat .. The sets were: (i) wheat (cv. Chinese Spring)-Hordeum vulgare (cv. Betzes) disomic addition lines; (ii) wheat (cv. Chinese Spring)-Hordeum chilense disomic addition lines; (iii) wheat (various lines)-H. villosa disomic addition and substitution lines; and (iv) wheat (cv. Chinese Spring)-H. villosa disomic addition lines. Three of the four sets were not complete. Cytogenetic analysis revealed that two addition lines of Set i (chromosomes 1H and 7H) and two addition lines of Set ii (2Hch and 3Hch) had only 42 chromosomes. For Set iii, addition and substitution lines for 1V, 2V, and 7V were not available. Parental lines and "Don" oats were used as controls.Each set of addition and substitution lines, along with the appropriate controls, was evaluated in its own experiment. Within an experiment, 80 seeds of each entry (line or control) were used (10 in non-inoculated tubes and 10 in inoculated tubes in each of 4 replications). All five wheat-barley disomic chromosome addition lines were more susceptible [82 to 90% loss in fresh weight, LSD (P = 0.05) = 10.1] than the barley parent (Betzes = 36%) and two of them (2H and 3H) had significantly more loss (90%) than the wheat parent (Chinese Spring = 78%). In another experiment, there were no differences among all five wheat-H. chilense disomic chromosome addition lines [77 to 88%; LSD (P = 0.05) = 13.7] and they were as susceptible as the wheat parent (79%). In a third experiment (Set iii), H. villosa [30%; LSD (P = 0.05) = 8.16] was more resistant than barley (Betzes = 47%); however, all four wheat-H. villosa disomic chromosome addition and two substitution lines (4V and 5V) were more susceptible (85 to 93% loss) than the wheat check (76%). Substitution lines 3V and 6V were as susceptible (75 to 80%) as wheat. In a fourth experiment involving the complete set of wheat-H. villosa disomic chromosome addition lines (Set iv), improved levels of resistance over that of the wheat parent [77% loss; LSD (P = 0.05) = 14.9] were not detected in any of the chromosome addition lines (74 to 90%).In summary, the bioassay used in this study was a rapid, accurate way for screening accessions for susceptibility to take-all in the greenhouse. None of the addition or substitution lines had improved levels of resistance even though their resistant parents had significantly less take-all than wheat. In the cases where a complete set of lines was not available, any genes that might confer resistance may be on a chromosome missing from the set. Alternatively, take-all resistance in these species may be polygenic with genes on different chromosomes or it may be masked by the wheat genome. Therefore, transfer of take-all resistance from H. vulgare, H. chilense, or H. villosa to wheat may not be easily accomplished.
1149427
Well, according to Biology, it takes 5 generations to set a trait in plants and 10 into animals.  So working with plants halves the study time on lots of research on longterm studies.  Also, you can stick a damaged plant in a furnace with no damage to your conscience while it would be hard to treat a human so....  Plants are perfect for studying in controlled environments.  I don't think studying plants in open fields is safe, since genetically altered plants have already 'accidently' gotten into the food supply.  Such as a few years ago when they harvested the wrong field and genetically engineered corn ended up in taco shells, etc and had to be pulled from the market "just in case".  Was all over the news.  However, in controlled environments, its a great opportunity to study and improve certain traits.  I shouldn't say "improve."  What I mean is that they "improve" them for "mans" situations.  You really can't improve upon nature.
755113
Probably mostly positive. The soil would be richer so plants would grow better making more food for all creatures locally. That would result in greater biodiversity.
1005574
Yeah, we can manupulate plant genome as per our requirement.  we can inoculate plant with  gene responsible for producing fruits for all months.....its called "gene manupulation" which makes impossible to possible.
280926
That refers, I believe, to genetic modification of foods.  Some people labled these as "Frankenfoods" (take off of the Frankenstein monster) to symbolize what happens when science tries to modify things.\nSomehow, they think that modified corn...which now grows twice as fast and has more nutrients in it...will harm us.  Instead of realizing that we can feed twice as many people, and feed the hungry all over the world, they just stick their fingers in their ears and become afraid of science, afraid of change.
580683
You are talking about Mendel's tallness gene in peas, one of the first genetic studies ever done. The plants produced different levels of gibberellin. Try the links I've given.
663044
The maize grain is a fruit in botany and that is for certain.\n\nNow let us see how it confirms to the definition of caryopsis. It is a clear botanical term used in the fruit morphology.\n\n1) Caryopsis is a simple , dry , indehiscent fruit that develops from a superior ovary of a monocarpellary gynoecium\n  Maize shows all these features as it IS a dry fruit and does not break open automatically on its own so INDEHISCENT fruit. It has a simple flower with a single carpel so MONOCARPELLARY gynoecium.\n\n2) In addition to the above mentioned features. In Maize the TESTA ( seed coat or the wall of the seed ) is inseparably fused with the PERICARP ( wall of the fruit ).\n   It is called HULL.This is the qualifying character of \n    CARYOPSIS. This hull shows a tiny scar at the top indicating that the grain is in fact a fruit and not seed.\n \n I hope this will clear your doubt.\n\n All plants that are commonly called 'cereals' belong to Grass family or Poaceae family ( old name Gramineae family)\n  and they show caryopsis fruit. All of them have endospermic seed and many are invaluable for man.
423242
Ya why not? If you really think about humans have been modifying plants and animals for a long time.  When we first tilled the soil and intentionally planted a seed that nature didn't put there and we first slaughtered an animal we raised for that soul purpose, we have been modifying nature.  Now its just so that we can have healthier food in more quantities.\n\nSome current applications of plant biotechnology include:\nDeveloping plants that are resistant to diseases, pests, and stress\nKeeping fruits and vegetables fresh for longer periods of time which is extremely important in tropical countries\nProducing plants that possess healthy fats and oils\nProducing plants that have increased nutritive value\nProducing soybeans with a higher expression of the anti-cancer proteins naturally found in soybeans\nDeveloping a whole range of higher value added feed\nOther applications such as lignin modification in trees that will make possible much higher fiber extraction rates in the paper and pulp industry\nProducing new substances in plants, including biodegradable plastics, and small proteins or peptides such as prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines\n\nAnimals \nIncreased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency \nBetter yields of meat, eggs, and milk \nImproved animal health and diagnostic methods