[dnautics]

Fine, then, a DNA-RNA base pair mismatch incurs approximately 1.5 kcal/mol penalty, which is a 1:10 less likelihood of matching. 3' UTRs of genes are what you need to reverse transcribe (by accident) the mRNA of interest to generate the cDNA you describe. On average they are around 700 bp, the odds of finding an exact match are about 700/4^18 - then a one bp mismatch is 700/4^17 times a 1:10 hit in terms of competitive binding. Two bp mismatch is 700/4^16 times 1:100. Then you have to consider that it's evolutionarily unlikely to have segments that exactly or inexactly match tRNAs because the resulting dsRNA is likely to engage in silencing via the DROSHA mechanism - probably because our bodies like to guess what - get rid of ssRNA viruses. So these numbers are probably at least on the order of 1:10 or even 1:100 or more in the wrong direction.

[dekhn]

and yet, existence proofs demonstrate you are wrong. Again, re-read the section on virus tumor oncogenes in The Biology of Cancer; pretty much everythign we know about oncogenes came from this physical mechanism.

[dnautics]

what? Most oncogene duplication comes from chromosomal abnormalities, or occasionally retrotransposon capture. Completely different mechanism from reverse transcriptase amplification. Occasionally retroviruses will incorporate themselves near or inside an oncogene and activate (and sometimes copy them) but again, that is not the same mechanism as nonspecific gene duplication, and will almost certainly not produce the same molecular product as a cDNA.

Remember, the patent is a MOLECULE patent, not a PROCESS patent.

[dekhn]

Yes, and what I'm demonstrating is there is likely prior art in the form of cDNA molecules identical to the Myriad molecule that have existed in cells at some point in the past. That fact, which SCOTUS convenient ignored, is sufficient to override the idea that cDNA molecules can be patented.

Anyway, your comment about oncogenes again shows you haven't read Biology of Cancer. if you read the first four chapters, it works out the history through which we worked out the understand of oncogenes. And the history is different from what we know now to be the prevalent mechanisms. The use of tumor viruses, which is nicely explained, demonstrates that scientists had already described the phenomenon I'm cited in the mid-1970's. That phenomenon wasn't really followed up on after the mid-80s, when people got better mechanisms and a larger understanding of cancer. But if you go back to the tumor virus literature and really understand it at a fundamental level, you have to acknowledge that BRCA cDNAs identical to the Myriad patent have almost certainly existed in both free (nucleoplasm) and integrated forms in at least one cell in the past. Whether that cell survived, is irrelevant.

[dnautics]

yeah, I said I hadn't read it, about 6 comments up. Also, BRCA isn't an oncogene, it's a tumor suppresor gene.

Finally, if you think an existence proof is going to break a patent, I wish you luck in your future pursuits in life.