English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I just did a lab in Biology where we inserted the glowing gene from a jellyfish into bacteria. I was wondering if the offspring of the bacteria would have the ability to glow.
I thought the answer was yes because all transformations should be heritable, but I'm not sure.

2007-02-26 00:52:04 · 7 answers · asked by Nikita R 2 in Science & Mathematics Biology

7 answers

The answer is yes and no. You probably inserted a plasmid or other gene sequence into the individual cells cytoplasm. That sequence codes for protein synthesis which you see in the cell. However since its a sequence and not a full chromosome it doesn't have a centromere for it to be reliably passed to the daughter cells. This means the two daughter cells may each have 1 copy of the DNA or both copies may end up in the same daughter cell.

For it to be reliably inherited you must insert the sequence directly into the DNA. It's more difficult than introduction of cytoplasmic genetic material, but can be done.

Forgive me, its been many years since I studied genetics but I still have many of the text. Ok, bacteria DNA is circular and doesn't have a centromere. However the fundamentals for heritable division are still the same. An old model proposes the origins of replicating chromosomes attach to the cell membrane resulting in daughter chromosomes attached to different parts of the membrane and a septum forms between. This is the mechanism for the daughter chromosomes to be distributed between the two daughter cells. Sometimes errors do occur resulting in minicells or long filaments.

2007-02-26 01:11:25 · answer #1 · answered by herogoggles 3 · 0 4

It really depends.

First of all, the nonsense about segregation and centromeres etc does not apply to bacteria since bacteria have circular chromosomes, 1 per cell.

However, unless the gene is incorporated into the genome (usually in bacterial transformation they are not), the plasmid is often rejected by the bacterial cells unless there is some selection pressure to keep the plasmid. So as long as you have ampicillin resistance on the plasmid that you transformed with, and as long as you plate the bacteria on ampicillin, the plasmid with the marker should be there. Without selection pressure, many will "spit out" the plasmid and thus not contain the gene.

Even with selection pressure you occassionally get escapers, but those are usually on the edges where the ampicillin didn't get spread properly.

2007-02-26 13:45:38 · answer #2 · answered by btpage0630 5 · 1 1

YES
1. For bacteria transformation is a natural competence
for other species transformation can only be accomplished by artificial means. So there is no need to artificial inject any material into bacteria because this happens naturally if place live or heat killed bacteria in a medium with the bacteria!!

2. In Bacteria there is only asexual reproduction - simple cell division and the DNA is replicated with the transformed DNA.
For other species artificially transformed DNA is not necessarily passed on via sexual reproduction in mammals.
Artificial competence has been accomplished in Fungi, yeast and plants.

2007-02-26 09:59:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

if you inserted the gene into the chromosomal DNA of the bacteria the offspring will inherit it.
If you inserted a plasmid with the gene (which I think is what you probably did) it will depend. Plasmids are extrachromosomal and if their genes are not essential to cell survival they can be lost again in successive generations. You can select for the presence of the plasmid (e.g antibiotic resistance) and that will maintain the plasmid in your bacteria culture.

2007-02-26 09:12:53 · answer #4 · answered by eintigerchen 4 · 3 1

Not all genes of a parent are passed on to thier offspring. In the case of sexual pairs, each parent only passes on half of their genes. In asexual reproduction (such as your bacteria example) all of the genes are passed on, however, not all genes which are passed on are dominant. The new offspring may have the gene but it may not show up or be expressed. This is my "off the top of my head response", I'd have to go back and take further biology and genetics classes to give a better answer. These are just some things to consider.

2007-02-26 08:59:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 5

Since we are talking about bacteria the gene should be inheritable. My reasoning is that the bacteria will initiate transcription and will copy the new RNA as the bacteria reproduces.

2007-02-26 08:57:25 · answer #6 · answered by amistwalker 2 · 0 4

If they didn't, we wouldn't be here today metabolising oxygen.

2007-02-26 09:02:40 · answer #7 · answered by CLICKHEREx 5 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers