Well, in general, it is a bad idea to ask the newsgroup to answer test
questions, and on principle, I don't answer these outright. But I will
contribute this much: this is a very poorly worded question. There isn't
enough detail in the previous statements to provide unambiguous answers
to the questions.
remove REMOVE to reply
In article <5ghR7.298050$5A3.116035054 at news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>,
"OrganicDisco" <rock at roll.com> wrote:
> Hello I am tutoring a student and have come accross a homwork of his and am
> at an impass...could someone please check out these questions and offer some
> solutions. I would very much appreciate it.
>> "Scientists at a Biotech company screen for enzymes by isolating DNA from
> soil, water, whale skin ...preparing an Ecoli DNA library, and screening the
> library for the desired enzyme activities. In a particular experiment a
> scientist was looking for cellulases and took a sample from a woodchip pile.
> However, he was unable to identify any gene that encoded a cellulose
> degrading enzyme. On the other hand thoughm he was able to isolate
> cellulose degrading organisms from the same woodchip sample. Using reverse
> genetics he could identify the gene encoding a novel cellulase that was
> unrelated to any previously identified cellulase.
>> a. What could have been a possible reason for not being able to identify
> the enzyme using the first approach?
> b. If the first approach was so unsuccessful in the example, why do you
> think this company is doing so well--if you were asked to raise money for
> the company, how would you sell this method over the other method?
> c. Could the scientist have tried another approach to identify his gene,
> but by purifying the organism?
>> Any answers would be much appreciated.
> Thanks
>>
