Does It Run in Families Like a Single Gene?
Genetics domain · Lesson 3 of 20 · Medical Interventions (MI), with PBS overlap
Today's goal: Students will compare clean autosomal dominant inheritance against the multifactorial threshold model and use Mateo's sparse, non-vertical pedigree to argue that his isolated cleft fits the multifactorial picture, without yet naming a cause.
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.
Inheritance line: Mateo's pattern does NOT fit clean autosomal dominant; there is no vertical transmission and both parents are unaffected. It is best modeled as multifactorial (threshold), where many small genetic and environmental factors add up past a line.
Recurrence reasoning: A future sibling's recurrence risk would be well below 50% because a cleft under this model requires many small factors to coincide, not a single dominant gene transmitted at 50%. No single causal gene has been named yet.
Also due today: Note clearly that no single causal gene has been named today.
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: Does Mateo's fit clean single-gene (dominant) , or something else?
- 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: Write the inheritance line for Mateo's chart stating that the pattern does NOT fit clean autosomal dominant and is best modeled as multifactorial (threshold), and explain in one sentence why a future sibling's would be well below 50%.
- 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 "Write the inheritance line for Mateo's chart stating that the pattern does NOT fit clean autosomal dominant and is best modeled as multifactorial (threshold), and explain in one sentence why a future sibling's recurrence risk would be well below 50%.".
- 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.