Interference 103,781
A. Well, I knew it was about 70 percent AT and only
about 30 percent GC.
Q. . . . And did you reach any conclusions as to how
to solve the problem?
A. I believe that we should go through and analyze
the Bt gene very carefully and try and identify sequences
that were specifically contributing to this. And since
the gene itself was very AT-rich, you know, some of those
sequences could be identified and we could remove them
and improve the gene’s ability to be used in the plant.
When asked if she discussed the results and the ideas
arising and conclusions she drew therefrom with Dr. Adang,
Dr. Murray testified (AR 4154, p. 453, l. 1, - p. 455, l. 5)
(emphasis added):
A. I remember one particular discussion in November
1985. And in this discussion, I went up to Mike’s office
with my results, with my X-ray films of the blots, and I
talked to him about some experiments that I wanted to run,
some more experiments, to try and identify what the problem
was with the Bt gene. And I told him my idea at that time,
that the coding sequence itself of the Bt gene was the
problem and that we would have to go through and modify the
coding sequence of the Bt gene in order to improve its
expression.
And Mike was very familiar with the insecticidal
properties of the Bt protein. And I really wasn’t as
familiar with that.
So he said to me if we change even one amino acid, or
delete even one amino acid, it may no longer by the same Bt
protein.
It may now act on different insects. And I’ve done
experiments making the Bt gene shorter and it loses its
toxicity. So we have to keep the whole section in there
in order for it to work.
-112-
Page: Previous 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007