Is This Gene Important Across Species?
Genetics domain · Lesson 11 of 20 · Medical Interventions (MI), with PBS overlap
Today's goal: Use a multi-species alignment and the logic of conservation to argue which parts of the IRF6 protein are functionally essential, then flag a variant of unknown meaning as likely important or likely tolerated using conservation alone.
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.
Position A (DNA-binding domain, identical in all 17 species):
- Recommendation: FLAG, investigate first.
- Justification: A position that is identical across 17 species separated by hundreds of millions of years has been held still by purifying selection, which is evidence the region is essential. A change here is likely to matter.
Position B (floppy linker, differs in 9 of 17 species):
- Recommendation: likely tolerated.
- Justification: A position that drifts freely across many species sits in a region evolution does not protect, so a change there is more likely to be tolerated.
Note: this ranking uses conservation only; a database (ClinVar) check would be the next step before any clinical claim.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A pair of justified recommendations that rank two variants by sequence conservation alone.
- Name the variables and include units.
- Enter observations without changing the raw values.
- Check labels, calculations, and patterns before interpreting the data.
Keep the structure. Replace the question, facts, measurements, and evidence. Then recheck units, vocabulary, and whether the conclusion goes beyond the evidence.
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: Why do scientists compare the same instruction across animals before deciding a change matters?
- 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: You are handed results for two positions where a variant of unknown meaning was found. Position A is identical in all 17 species and sits in the ; Position B differs in 9 of 17 species and sits in the floppy linker. Write a one-line recommendation for each ("flag, investigate first" or "likely tolerated") and justify each using conservation, not guesswork.
- 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 through the route named under Submit here 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 "You are handed BLAST results for two positions where a variant of unknown meaning was found. Position A is identical in all 17 species and sits in the DNA-binding domain; Position B differs in 9 of 17 species and sits in the floppy linker. Write a one-line recommendation for each ("flag, investigate first" or "likely tolerated") and justify each using conservation, not guesswork.".
- 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 attached to your class form or handed in, and confirmed.
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.
It builds this reusable test skill: Using cross-species conservation as evidence of functional importance.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.