Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
Updated on: 04 Apr 2009, 19:46
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.
Last edited by Caroline121 on 04 Apr 2009, 19:46, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Reading Comprehension (RC) Forum
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!
