Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized for You
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Struggling with Table analysis questions on GMAT Data Insights? You're not alone! With typical accuracy rates hovering around 45% and average solving time of 3.25 minutes per question, Table analysis can be a real challenge.
We present a collection of 30 GMAT Focus practice questions covering Problem Solving, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, and Critical Reasoning. Take this GMAT practice quiz live with peers, analyze your GMAT study progress, and more.
Sayali narrates her experience of succeeding on the GMAT after 4 attempts & 2 years of preparations. Sayali achieved 99 percentile score on GMAT Focus edition after significantly improving her performance in verbal section of the GMAT
After just 3 months of studying with the TTP GMAT Focus course, Conner scored an incredible 755 (Q89/V90/DI83) on the GMAT Focus. In this live interview, he shares how he achieved his outstanding 755 (100%) GMAT Focus score on test day.
In this conversation with Ankit Mehra, IESE MBA and CEO & Co-Founder, of GyanDhan, we will discuss how prospective MBA students can finance their MBA education with education loans and scholarships.
What do András from Hungary, Pablo from Mexico, Conner from the United States, Giorgio from Italy, Leo from Germany, and Rishab from India have in common? They all earned top scores on the GMAT Focus Edition using the Target Test Prep course!
Join us for an exclusive one-day event focused on mastering the GMAT and maximizing your preparation resources! Here's what you can expect: Don't miss out on this invaluable opportunity to supercharge your GMAT preparation journey.
??Until about five years ago, the very idea that peptide
[#permalink]
Updated on: 04 Apr 2009, 19:46
Until about five years ago, the very idea that peptide hormones might be made anywhere in the brain besides the hypothalamus was astounding. Peptide hormones, scientists thought, were made by endocrine glands and the hypothalamus was thought to be the brains’ only endocrine gland. What is more, because peptide hormones cannot cross the blood-brain barrier, researchers believed that they never got to any part of the brain other than the hypothalamus, where they were simply produced and then released into the bloodstream. But these beliefs about peptide hormones were questioned as laboratory after laboratory found that antiserums to peptide hormones, when injected into the brain, bind in places other than the hypothalamus, indicating that either the hormones or substances that cross-react with the antiserums are present. The immunological method of detecting peptide hormones by means of antiserums, however, is imprecise. Cross-reactions are possible and this method cannot determine whether the substances detected by the antiserums really are the hormones, or merely close relatives. Furthermore, this method cannot be used to determine the location in the body where the detected substances are actually produced. New techniques of molecular biology, however, provide a way to answer these questions. It is possible to make specific complementary DNA’s (c DNA’s) that can serve as molecular probes to seek out the messenger RNA’s (mRNA’s) of the peptide hormones. If brain cells are making the hormones, the cells will contain these mRNA’s. If the products the brain cells make resemble the hormones but are not identical to them, then the c DNA’s should still bind to these mRNA’s, but should not bind as tightly as they would to m RNA’s for the true hormones. The cells containing these mRNA’s can then be isolated and their mRNA’s decoded to determine just what their protein products are and how closely the products resemble the true peptide hormones. The molecular approach to detecting peptide hormones using cDNA probes should also be much faster than the immunological method because it can take years of tedious purifications to isolate peptide hormones and then develop antiserums to them. Roberts, expressing the sentiment of many researchers, states: “I was trained as an endocrinologist. But it became clear to me that the field of endocrinology needed molecular biology input. The process of grinding out protein purifications is just too slow.” If, as the initial tests with cDNA probes suggest, peptide hormones really are made in brain in areas other than the hypothalamus, a theory must be developed that explains their function in the brain. Some have suggested that the hormones are all growth regulators, but Rosen’s work on rat brains indicates that this cannot be true. A number of other researchers propose that they might be used for intercellular communication in the brain.
22. The passage suggests that a substance detected in the brain by use of antiserums to peptide hormones may (A) have been stored in the brain for a long period of time (B) play no role in the functioning of the brain (C) have been produced in some part of the body other than the brain (D) have escaped detection by molecular methods (E) play an important role in the functioning of the hypothalamus
26. Which of the following is a way in which the immunological method of detecting peptide hormones differs from the molecular method? (A) The immunological method uses substances that react with products of hormone-producing cells, whereas the molecular method uses substances that react with a specific component of the cells themselves. (B) The immunological method has produced results consistent with long-held beliefs about peptide hormones, whereas the molecular method has produced results that upset these beliefs. (C) The immunological method requires a great deal of expertise, whereas the molecular method has been used successfully by nonspecialists. (D) The immunological method can only be used to test for the presence of peptide hormones within the hypothalamus, whereas the molecular method can be used throughout the brain. (E) The immunological method uses probes that can only bind with peptide hormones, whereas the molecular method uses probes that bind with peptide hormones and substances similar to them.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Originally posted by Caroline121 on 03 Apr 2009, 20:01.
Last edited by Caroline121 on 04 Apr 2009, 19:46, edited 1 time in total.
Re: ??Until about five years ago, the very idea that peptide
[#permalink]
04 Apr 2009, 15:54
Tough one. Chose C (see highlight in the stem) and B.
Caroline121 wrote:
Until about five years ago, the very idea that peptide hormones might be made anywhere in the brain besides the hypothalamus was astounding. Peptide hormones, scientists thought, were made by endocrine glands and the hypothalamus was thought to be the brains’ only endocrine gland. What is more, because peptide hormones cannot cross the blood-brain barrier, researchers believed that they never got to any part of the brain other than the hypothalamus, where they were simply produced and then released into the bloodstream. But these beliefs about peptide hormones were questioned as laboratory after laboratory found that antiserums to peptide hormones, when injected into the brain, bind in places other than the hypothalamus, indicating that either the hormones or substances that cross-react with the antiserums are present. The immunological method of detecting peptide hormones by means of antiserums, however, is imprecise. Cross-reactions are possible and this method cannot determine whether the substances detected by the antiserums really are the hormones, or merely close relatives. Furthermore, this method cannot be used to determine the location in the body where the detected substances are actually produced. New techniques of molecular biology, however, provide a way to answer these questions. It is possible to make specific complementary DNA’s (c DNA’s) that can serve as molecular probes to seek out the messenger RNA’s (mRNA’s) of the peptide hormones. If brain cells are making the hormones, the cells will contain these mRNA’s. If the products the brain cells make resemble the hormones but are not identical to them, then the c DNA’s should still bind to these mRNA’s, but should not bind as tightly as they would to m RNA’s for the true hormones. The cells containing these mRNA’s can then be isolated and their mRNA’s decoded to determine just what their protein products are and how closely the products resemble the true peptide hormones. The molecular approach to detecting peptide hormones using cDNA probes should also be much faster than the immunological method because it can take years of tedious purifications to isolate peptide hormones and then develop antiserums to them. Roberts, expressing the sentiment of many researchers, states: “I was trained as an endocrinologist. But it became clear to me that the field of endocrinology needed molecular biology input. The process of grinding out protein purifications is just too slow.” If, as the initial tests with cDNA probes suggest, peptide hormones really are made in brain in areas other than the hypothalamus, a theory must be developed that explains their function in the brain. Some have suggested that the hormones are all growth regulators, but Rosen’s work on rat brains indicates that this cannot be true. A number of other researchers propose that they might be used for intercellular communication in the brain.
22. The passage suggests that a substance detected in the brain by use of antiserums to peptide hormones may (A) have been stored in the brain for a long period of time (B) play no role in the functioning of the brain (C) have been produced in some part of the body other than the brain (D) have escaped detection by molecular methods (E) play an important role in the functioning of the hypothalamus
26. Which of the following is a way in which the immunological method of detecting peptide hormones differs from the molecular method? (A) The immunological method uses substances that react with products of hormone-producing cells, whereas the molecular method uses substances that react with a specific component of the cells themselves. (B) The immunological method has produced results consistent with long-held beliefs about peptide hormones, whereas the molecular method has produced results that upset these beliefs. (C) The immunological method requires a great deal of expertise, whereas the molecular method has been used successfully by nonspecialists. (D) The immunological method can only be used to test for the presence of peptide hormones within the hypothalamus, whereas the molecular method can be used throughout the brain. (E) The immunological method uses probes that can only bind with peptide hormones, whereas the molecular method uses probes that bind with peptide hormones and substances similar to them.
Re: ??Until about five years ago, the very idea that peptide
[#permalink]
04 Apr 2009, 20:17
Caroline121 wrote:
Furthermore, this method cannot be used to determine the location in the body where the detected substances are actually produced. 22. The passage suggests that a substance detected in the brain by use of antiserums to peptide hormones may (C) have been produced in some part of the body other than the brain
With unsure attitude, the statement "Furthermore, this method cannot be used to determine the location in the body where the detected substances are actually produced." is not persuasible to be an indication that the substances “may have been produced in some part of the body other than the brain", for "the location in the body" is likely to be any part of the brain other than the hypothalamus.
Re: ??Until about five years ago, the very idea that peptide
[#permalink]
Updated on: 04 Apr 2009, 20:44
26. Which of the following is a way in which the immunological method of detecting peptide hormones differs from the molecular method? (B) The immunological method has produced results consistent with long-held beliefs about peptide hormones, whereas the molecular method has produced results that upset these beliefs.
Information in the 2nd paragraph "But these beliefs about peptide hormones were questioned as laboratory after laboratory found that antiserums to peptide hormones, when injected into the brain, bind in places other than the hypothalamus, indicating that either the hormones or substances that cross-react with the antiserums are present. The immunological method of detecting peptide hormones by means of antiserums, however, is imprecise."
The clues indicate that the immunological method to detecting peptide hormones has cast doubt on these beliefs (long-held beliefs), so it's hard to say "The immunological method has produced results consistent with long-held beliefs". That's the reason I eliminate Answer B from the probabilities of being a correct answer.
Originally posted by Caroline121 on 04 Apr 2009, 20:29.
Last edited by Caroline121 on 04 Apr 2009, 20:44, edited 1 time in total.
Re: ??Until about five years ago, the very idea that peptide
[#permalink]
04 Apr 2009, 20:44
26. Which of the following is a way in which the immunological method of detecting peptide hormones differs from the molecular method? (A) The immunological method uses substances that react with products of hormone-producing cells, whereas the molecular method uses substances that react with a specific component of the cells themselves. (D) The immunological method can only be used to test for the presence of peptide hormones within the hypothalamus, whereas the molecular method can be used throughout the brain.
The reason I think (D) is not correct also, is that I don't find any information to support the assertion that "The immunological method can only be used to test for the presence of peptide hormones within the hypothalamus". On the contrary, "But these beliefs about peptide hormones were questioned as laboratory after laboratory found that antiserums to peptide hormones, when injected into the brain, bind in places other than the hypothalamus, indicating that either the hormones or substances that cross-react with the antiserums are present." suggests that the immunological method can be used to test the presence of peptide hormones in places other than hypothalamus. I would slightly agree that (A) is an answer superior to others. (A) The immunological method uses substances (antiserums) that react with products (?) of hormone-producing cells, whereas the molecular method uses substances (complementary DNA’s) that react with a specific component (messenger RNA’s) of the cells themselves. My only doubt is that I don't know what "products of hormone-producing cells" the answer talks about. That would be great if anyone can throw a light on this question.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
gmatclubot
Re: ??Until about five years ago, the very idea that peptide [#permalink]