<p>
</p>
<p>It shouldn’t matter too much, although it may be part of the answer to part A of the same question, which propagates to the dihybrid cross since the inheritance pattern with that respect does not change, so if you’ve mentioned it in part A, you should be fine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless I just completely zoned out during the exam, which is actually quite possible since I really don’t give a crap about it, I’m pretty sure the question asked for the F1xF1, or the dihybrid cross.</p>
<p>Some people probably messed up thinking it was still an F2 generation like cross I and II</p>
<p>For 2 B, I put that the breaking down of the starch solution by the amylase enzyme was a catabolic reaction and thus, there was a release of energy whenever it was broken down. So, I reasoned that if energy was being released, the temperature would increase and the amylase enzyme would become denatured, thus it would not be able to perform as effectively. </p>
<p>It seems everyone else is putting that the starch amount would run out, which makes sense. Do you think I’d get at least some pointage though?</p>
<p>@coffeecup2945</p>
<p>The question states that true breeding bronze eyed, stunted winged (both dominant) males were crossed with true breeding red eyed, normal winged (both recessive) females.
It says all F1 had bronze eyes & stunted wings. (all heterozygous)</p>
<p>Then it says F1 was crossed with true breeding red eyed, normal winged (both recessive) flies. </p>
<p>Therefore WwRr x wwrr.</p>
<p>Correct me if I’m wrong.</p>
<p>@@Cribelle, that’s what I put. :)</p>
<p>@Bob: Basically, no. Unless they give points for reasonable analysis, but I don’t think they do.</p>
<p>@Cribelle: That’s what I put too.</p>
<p>@bobraymund</p>
<p>You might…but I’m not entirely sure if your logic makes sense because I don’t think enzyme reactions can denature enzymes.
Also I think they usually look for the most obvious answer so unless they give out points for other stuff I’m not sure.</p>
<p>@crib: If you consider the temperature at which the reaction was taking place (significantly lower than body temperature) and the fact that this reaction normally occurs in the human body (the mouth, specifically), then it’s clear that this reaction occurs at normally higher temperatures. So even if you were to raise the temperature to body temperature, it’d still take place just fine.</p>
<p>Also, they can give points for any factually-true/correct answer. The rubrics aren’t always exhaustive or all-inclusive, and if you can substantiate your claim, then you can earn a point. However, this claim cannot be substantiated, so I doubt points will be given.</p>
<p>Aw, ha ha. Oh well. Hopefully I get partial pointage at least. Was between putting that and that the substrate was just running out, but I thought the latter was way too simple. </p>
<p>4A - As the stages progress, more animals and bigger animals will start to occupy the region as bigger trees provide more shelter. </p>
<p>4B -increased rainfall, increased CO2, and increased sunlight. </p>
<p>4C - I just took a stab at this one really. </p>
<p>(i) Lava would deteriorate the trees and cause animals to evacuate/be killed. However, decomposers would eat the dead materials and recycle them, which would then cause more animals to come back. Just a bunch of bull. </p>
<p>(ii) Just said how this is worse than a natural disaster like a volcano erupting because I’m guessing that’s what the environmentalist type people want to hear.</p>
<p>Any of this seem right? :p</p>
<p>4a and b are good. At least those are similar to what I put, so I hope they’re right! :p</p>
<p>(i) - Interesting aspect. I BSed it too, but did you mention primary succession? I said it would be secondary succession since there was life there before, but then I remembered (AFTER the exam) that primary succession occurs after geographic changes such as a volcano eruption. At least I mentioned succession though.</p>
<p>(ii) - This one would be secondary succession, I think. That’s what I wrote. How about you?</p>
<p>3a and 3b. Did we have to define the traits as W and R and the like? I just explained what the genes’ relations were, etc.</p>
<p>For 3b, I stated that the allele for bronze eyes and the allele for stunted wings were linked, which meant that they were on the same chromosome. I also stated that the allele for red eyes and the allele for normal wings were linked as well (same chromosome). This would mean that crossover was less likely to occur between the two allele pairs and that they would not follow Mendel’s Law of Independent Assortment. I said that this accounted for how infrequently and scarcely bronze eyes/normal wings and red eyes/stunted wings appeared.</p>
<p>Would this be a plausible explanation, or am I missing something here?</p>
<p>Otherwise, it would be…</p>
<p>Eye color = autosomal trait (not sex-linked)
Wing structure = autosomal trait (not sex-linked)</p>
<p>Bronze eyes = autosomal dominant (wild-type)
Red eyes = autosomal recessive (mutant)</p>
<p>Stunted wings = autosomal dominant (wild-type)
Normal wings = autosomal recessive (mutant)</p>
<p>Linked = red eyes/normal wings; bronze eyes/stunted wings</p>
<p>@@SeekingUni, ah darn. Wow, I totally forgot. Yeah, the first one would be primary succession. Good thing you mentioned some type of succession though, I totally forgot. </p>
<p>I didn’t mention succession for the second one either, bah. I just scribbled down some last minute BS. But yeah, secondary succession would be correct. </p>
<p>Aww well.</p>
<p>Don’t worry. I know I screwed up on several things, at least one thing in each question (except for the lab question)… but the curve is very generous. :)</p>
<p>Yeah, I’m really banking on there being a good curve like last year. </p>
<p>For 1 B, I wasn’t sure what the target cell of insulin was…</p>
<p>Don’t even get me started on 1 b and c. I had NO clue w…t…f it was talking about, because we didn’t cover it in class, and quite frankly, I wasn’t in the mood to learn nitty-gritty specifics on my own. 
I did get part a, although I got the hormones BACKWARDS, which really sucks. I hope they either don’t catch on to it (not very likely) or they realize what I mean, since I included a lot of info. I also included a diagram of how homeostasis is obtained if the blood-glucose levels get too high or low. :p</p>
<p>@bobraymund</p>
<p>There are only two pancreatic hormones that I know of–glucagon and insulin. Glucagon is produced by alpha cells in the pancreas; insulin is produced by beta cells.</p>
<p>Glucagon increases blood glucose whereas insulin lowers blood glucose. Lack of glucagon causes hypoglycemia; lack of insulin causes hyperglycemia/diabetes.</p>
<p>For many other parts of the question, you could also say that failures in receptor proteins to detect the above hormones or genetic predispositions could have contributed to their respective conditions.</p>
<p>Both glucagon and insulin target liver cells, but insulin also targets the muscles and fat.</p>
<p>I’ll be posting my responses below. Can anyone give me a prediction on how many points I got? I know that we don’t know the grading rubric, but just based on speculation and the question how many points did I receive. </p>
<p>1A
<ul>
<li>A protein hormone sends signals by having a glycoprotein on the outer membrane for cell recognition. It also has a multi histocompatible complex to identify between self and non-self.</li>
</ul>
<p>2A
<p>2B
-There was a change in reactionary time after 30 minutes because the substrate likely ran out and the enzyme had no more function left. The substrate, which is starch, probably was used and there was no more maltose production.</p>
<p>2C
<p>2D
<p>( I wrote a similar description for pH).</p>
<p>3A
-(Super detailed; showed punnet squares, etc)
I stated that cross I and cross II are examples of autosomal dominate traits. The bronze eyes were dominate and the stunted wings were dominate. Showed LOTS of work.
3B
-I did:
Parent: AABB x aabb
F1: AaBb x aabb</p>
<p>I just stated the reason for the results may have been due to mutation or the fact that the sample size was small and the offsprings do not have to necessarily be exact to the ratio (explanation is probably incorrect… any points though?)</p>
<p>4A
<p>4B
<p>4C
<h2>Similar for the second scenario.</h2>
<p>Just making sure. The enzyme and starch solution question, of you doubled the amount of amalase, then the reaction rate would increase and it would reach equilibrium sooner, right? Was I wrong for putting equlilibrium? I soon realized that the enzyme is not reacting with the starch, but rather helping it turn into maltose faster…</p>
<p>Also, the abiotic factors I mentioned in the 4th FRQ were wind, sunlight, and I can’t remember if I put nutrients or water. Are those alright? I remembered reading that wind affects if seeds would get blown over to the area, or something like that.</p>
<p>I have a question: Do they only grade what you write on the lines, or will they take into consideration small notes I made off to the side of the data tables on the fly genetics question?</p>
<p>Just curious…</p>
<p>
Equilibrium is a weird word to use to describe it, but I’m sure they will know what you mean. Everything else you said was right though; the reaction would take place twice as fast, resulting in the depletion of the starch in half the time it took in the original experiment.</p>