Interference 103,781
A. I recall in spring of 1987 and continuing into
the summer, Liz had proceeded through her compilation
of genes and was communicating these results to me and
discussing their - some implications regarding Bt.
Next, Adang cites Dr. Elizabeth Murray’s testimony
(AR 4152-4156) in Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.,
No. 96-505 (D. Del. Feb. 5, 1998)(Delaware I)(AB 10, Fact 36).
When asked what the northern analysis indicated to her about Bt
expression in plants (AR 4153, p. 449, l. 17-18), Dr. Murray
testified (AR 4153, p. 449, l. 19, - p. 450, l. 8):
A. It indicated two things to me. The first thing it
indicated was that the Bt expression was very low compared
to two other genes that we had put into our - our analysis
of the plants.
. . . . .
And the RNA that I did see was also shorter than
I expected to see. It was about half the size that I
expected to see if the full Bt RNA had been made in
these plants.
When asked if she formed any ideas and conclusions from the
results, Dr. Murray stated (AR 4153, p. 451, l. 25, - p. 452,
l. 20):
A. Well, I looked at the results and I believe that
it indicated that the coding region of the gene itself was
not working in the plant. That the DNA sequence we had
added to the plant was from a bacteria. . . . [T]he Bt
gene itself wasn’t working.
So I believe the sequence of the gene itself was a
problem in this plant.
Q. And what did you know about the sequence of the
Bt gene at that time?
-111-
Page: Previous 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007