Earlier today, my “in” box began to fill with info from everyone I’ve ever met letting me know that the Supreme Court had ruled on the Myriad case about patenting the breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. I also received a dozen pitches from PR people offering me all manner of instant interviews with lawyers, doctors, bioethicists, and health care analysts.
No one offered me an interview with a geneticist – a person who knows something about DNA. So being such a person myself, I decided to take a look at the decision. And I found errors – starting right smack in the opening paragraph.
“Scientists can extract DNA from cells to isolate specific segments for study. They can also synthetically create exons-only strands of nucleotides known as composite DNA (cDNA). cDNA contains only the exons that occur in DNA, omitting the intervening introns.”
The definition is correct, the terminology, not. “cDNA” does not stand for “composite DNA.” It stands for “complementary DNA.” The document gets it right a little farther on. And I rather like the term “composite DNA,” but it’s confusing to introduce a new term in science when we already have one.
cDNA came into fashion when I was in grad school, circa 1977. Like many genetics terms, it has a very precise meaning, something I pay attention to because I write human genetics books, including 10 editions of a textbook. Changing a term in a textbook takes a lot of thought and feedback.
A cDNA is termed “complementary” because it is complementary in nucleotide base sequence to the messenger RNA (mRNA) that is made from the gene. Enzymes cut from the mRNA the sequences (introns) that do not encode amino acids and retains those (exons) that do encode protein. So a cDNA represents the part of a gene that is actually used to tell the cell to make protein.
A cDNA is created in the laboratory, and it is not a DNA sequence that occurs in nature, although its parts do. Hence, the Supreme Court’s part 2 of the decision, which acknowledges Myriad’s right to use a test based on a complementary, or cDNA.
I did a google search for “composite DNA” and just found the media parroting of today’s decision, and a few old forensics uses with what I think is a different meaning. So a caveat: my conclusion that the term is incorrect and invented is based on negative evidence. If I’m wrong, mea culpa in advance and I will feel like an idiot.
But cDNA isn’t the only questionable term. On page 16, footnote #8 discusses a pseudogene as resulting from “random incorporation of fragments of cDNA.” That’s not the definition I recall or use in my book.
A pseudogene in a classical sense results from a DNA replication error that makes an extra copy of a gene. Over time, one copy mutates itself into a form that can’t do its job. The pseudogene remains in the genome like a ghost of a functional gene. The mutations occur at random because the pseudogene, not being used, isn’t subject to natural selection. The globin gene locus on chromosome 11 is chock full of pseudogenes.
And how is the Supreme Court’s definition of a pseudogene supposed to happen, in nature or otherwise? A cDNA exists in a lab dish. A gene exists in a cell that is part of an organism. How does the cDNA “randomly incorporate” itself inside the cell? Jump in from the dish? Part of the footnote states, “… given pseudogenes’ apparently random origins … ” Pseudogenes’ origins aren’t random at all. They happen in specific genes that tend to have repeats in the sequence, “confusing” the replication enzymes. (See comments for corrections on this. I didn’t know that the viral versions are called pseudogenes too.)
Today’s decision is undoubtedly a wonderful leap forward for patients, their families, and researchers. It is long overdue. And some may think I am nitpicking, not seeing the forest for the trees. But these two questionable terms jumped right out at me — I’d troll for more but I want to post this. What else is wrong? How can we trust the decision if the science is not quite right? And what is the background of the people who research the decisions?
I know nothing about the law, zero, which is why I’m not writing about that. But the science in something as important as a Supreme Court decision should accurately use the language of the field under discussion.
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.