RNA destroyed, and areas of no color showed

[UnD3R0aTh]

1. The problem in attachments

Homework Equations

3. RNA destroyed means no proteins (enzymes) formed, however if some areas showed no color, does that mean other areas did? I'm pretty sure the answer is D but making sure

 

[Ygggdrasil]

I would probably go with D as well. The only other option that would make sense is C, but a reduction in level of the enzyme would probably produce a fainter color (e.g. pink color) rather than no color.

 

[UnD3R0aTh]

I would probably go with D as well. The only other option that would make sense is C, but a reduction in level of the enzyme would probably produce a fainter color (e.g. pink color) rather than no color.

reduction in the enzyme will produce fainter color? or areas with no color? it might be c because there are areas with color! this is a tricky one! the problem is rna is at the cellular level, the color is at a multicellular level, it's a bit unclear to me please more advice!

 

[Ygggdrasil]

It's hard to distinguish between C and D without more information.

 

[chemisttree]

If a transcript is supressed, wouldn't it fail to produce the enzyme (so B is the answer)?

 

[Ygggdrasil]

To me, B (a key enzyme involved in flower pigmentation was inactivated) suggests that the enzyme is still produced but it's activity gets inhibited (for example by a small molecule that blocks the active site), especially given the presence of answer D (a key enzyme involved in flower pigmentation was not produced).

 

[epenguin]

The information in the question is pretty insufficient - it might make sense within your course and what you have been told, or the preceding questions, which we do not know.

My best guess for what the first question could mean(!) would be "The flower colour can be influenced by external conditions (temperature, nutrients, minerals or something). The mechanism of this influence has been shown to be that the influencing factor somehow causes degradation of transcripts of a particular gene." I have to presume that it is meant that the effect is not seen until the second generation, and that the treatment with the factor continues then.

What then is described sounds like what is known as mosaicsm. When a character depends on transcripts expressed in early development, if transcription is interfered with, the transcripts can be present in some cells and not others, making a "mosaic" of cells in the organism, example IIRC tortoiseshell cats.

On the face of it I would say it has to be C not D, because some of the plant is red. But maybe D is just possible, through cytoplasmic carry-over of transcripts. I have never heard of such phenomenon, but that is not a strong argument, and if it is thinkable it probably happens somewhere.

I would say C and the others not, because (cheating) there is nothing in the premisses to implicate them. I suspect it would be clearer if we had questions 1 and 2.