Isoginkgetin is a cell-permeable chemical isolated from the Ginkgo biloba tree that binds to and inhibits snRNPs.
Would this be most problematic for E. coli cells, yeast cells, or human cells? Why?

Recent observations indicate that alternative splicing is a common way for eukaryotes to expand their repertoire of gene functions. Studies indicate that approximately 50 percent of human genes exhibit alternative splicing and approximately 15 percent of disease-causing mutations involve aberrant alternative splicing. Different tissues show remarkably different frequencies of alternative splicing, with the brain accounting for approximately 18 percent of such events [Xu et al. (2002). Nucl. Acids Res. 30:3754–3766].

Why might some tissues engage in more alternative splicing than others?

Isoginkgetin is a cell-permeable chemical isolated from the Ginkgo biloba tree that binds to and inhibits snRNPs.

What types of problems would you anticipate in cells treated with isoginkgetin?

M. Klemke et al. (2001) discovered an interesting coding phenomenon in which an exon within a neurologic hormone receptor gene in mammals appears to produce two different protein entities (and ALEX). The following is the DNA sequence of the exon's end derived from a rat.

 5'-gtcccaaccatgcccaccgatcttccgcctgcttctgaagATGCGGGCCCAG

The lowercase letters represent the initial coding portion for the protein, and the uppercase letters indicate the portion where the ALEX entity is initiated. (For simplicity, and to correspond with the RNA coding dictionary, it is customary to represent the coding (non-template) strand of the DNA segment.)

Are there any evolutionary advantages to having the same DNA sequence code for two protein products? Are there any disadvantages?