What the IRF6 Protein Looks Like
Genetics domain · Lesson 10 of 20 · Medical Interventions (MI), with PBS overlap
Today's goal: Students will describe the IRF6 protein's two-domain architecture (a DNA-binding domain and a protein-binding SMIR/IAD domain) and explain why a variant's domain location predicts its effect.
What a finished product looks like
This is a model of the work you should turn in. Use it to check your own: match the structure and the level of detail, do not copy it. Your wording should be your own.
Domain-map predictions:
- Variant X, missense at residue 60 (inside the DNA-binding domain, residues 7 to 115): likely damaging; it hits the part that clamps onto DNA, so DNA gripping is wrecked.
- Variant Y, missense at residue 424 (inside the protein-binding SMIR/IAD domain): weakens partnering with other proteins; usually milder than a DNA-binding-domain hit but can still cause disease (matches S424L).
- Variant Z, nonsense (stop) at residue 100: truncates the chain, so the C-terminal protein-binding domain is lost and most function goes with it (haploinsufficiency).
Pattern: a variant's domain location predicts which job it breaks.
Also due today: Name the domain hit or lost for each variant.
How this was built, step by step
The finished product above did not appear all at once. Here is the path from the question to the turned-in work, so you can follow the same steps.
- 1Start from today's question: What does the IRF6 actually look like?
- 2Work the Model and the Explore questions to reason it out before writing anything.
- 3Pull the specific evidence the product needs from the reading and any database you used.
- 4Write it up in the required format: Place three relatives' variants on the IRF6 domain map (a at residue 60, a missense at residue 424, and a at residue 100) and predict the consequence in one sentence each, naming the domain hit or lost and the job affected.
- 5Check it against the rubric, then submit.
| Criterion | Proficient | Developing | Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complete | Every required part of the artifact is present and filled in. | Most parts are present, but one is missing or left blank. | Several parts are missing. |
| Accurate | The science and data are correct and match the evidence. | Mostly correct, with a small factual slip. | Key science or data is wrong. |
| Scientific reasoning (CER) | States a claim, backs it with specific evidence, and explains the reasoning. | Has a claim and evidence, but the reasoning is thin or missing. | Gives an answer with no evidence or reasoning. |
| Professional communication | Clear, organized, and labeled the way a clinician or scientist would write it. | Readable but disorganized or missing labels. | Hard to follow. |
| Submitted | Turned in the right way (Schoology for routine work) and confirmed. | Turned in, but in the wrong place or unconfirmed. | Not turned in. |
- CompleteProficient: Nothing is left blank: the model fills every part of "Place three relatives' variants on the IRF6 domain map (a missense at residue 60, a missense at residue 424, and a nonsense at residue 100) and predict the consequence in one sentence each, naming the domain hit or lost and the job affected.".
- AccurateProficient: Every number and claim matches the case evidence.
- Scientific reasoning (CER)Proficient: It names a claim, cites the specific evidence, and explains the reasoning, not just the answer.
- Professional communicationProficient: It is organized and labeled like a real chart note.
- SubmittedProficient: It would be turned in on Schoology and confirmed.
WebXam problem for today's skill
One exam-style question that uses exactly what you practiced today. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.