Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 47-65 and 67 are pending. Claims 1-46 and 66 have been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement (e.g., see p. 112 and 126). 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: the specification is lacking a description of labels A-E for Figure 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended.
Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 55 and 63 are objected to for failing to italicize the names of the plant species.
Claims 57 and 58 are objected to for failing to properly refer back to SHP genes and nucleic acids.
The final line of claim 57 should recite --the SHP gene-- as opposed to “a SHP gene” and the final line of claim 58 should recite --the nucleic acid sequence encoding the SHP genes-- as opposed to “a nucleic acid sequence encoding a SHP gene”.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 53 recites the limitation “SHP polypeptide”: there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as the claim from which claim 53 depends is not directed to a polypeptide.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 47-65 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for making B. napus plants having at least three knockout mutations in SHP genes as exemplified in Table 7A and 7B of the instant specification, does not reasonably provide enablement for making and/or using the genus of plants comprising the myriad of mutations as broadly claimed. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
In In re Wands (8 USPQ2d 1400 (CAFC 1988)), the CAFC considered the issue of enablement in molecular biology. The CAFC summarized eight factors to be considered in a determination of "undue experimentation". These factors include: (a) the quantity of experimentation; (b) the amount of guidance presented; (c) the presence or absence of working examples; (d) the nature of the invention; (e) the state of the prior art; (f) the predictability of the prior art; (g) the breadth of the claims; and (h) the relative skill in the art. The factors are analyzed in turn for the instant case as follows:
Here, claims 47-65 and 67 broadly encompass a plant of any species or part thereof comprising at least one mutation in at least three nucleic acid sequences encoding SHP genes having an undefined structure, wherein the nucleic acid sequences have as little as 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1-8, wherein the mutation reduces the expression or activity of the gene SHP gene or polypeptide and wherein the plant or part thereof exhibits reduced susceptibility to preharvest dehiscence, methods for producing said plant by introducing mutations into said genes, and a method of making seeds.
Meanwhile, the specification teaches the identification and characterization of SHP1A, SHP1C, SHP2A, SHP2C, SHP3A, SHP3C, SHP4A and SHP4C Brassica napus genes corresponding to the nucleotides sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1-8, respectively (p. 110 ¶ 0334).
The specification teaches that these genes are highly homologous to Arabidopsis SHP1/SHP2 and appear to be involved in the differentiation of dehiscent zone (DZ). Namely, when these genes are mutated fruits are not lignified and do not shatter: the genes promote lignification (p. 118 ¶ 0347).
The specification teaches that there is a correlation between shaking frequency to pod shatter reduction and staining score of lignified layers (p. 119, Tables 7A and B; see also Figure 5).
Here, the specification fails to provide the requisite guidance for predictably making and using the broad genus of SHP genes in the genus of plant species as claimed, and fails to teach the critical domains or motifs that confer SHP functional activity.
This guidance is critical because the specification teaches that SHP genes may have as little as 50% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1-8 (e.g., see p. 14 ¶ 0045) such that the claims encompass an enormous genus of nucleic acid sequences.
For example, a nucleic acid sequences having as little as 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 as encompassed by claims 48 and 60 would have 82 nucleic acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO: 1 and would encompass 382 distinct gene variants.
In the absence of guidance indicating where in the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 or any of the other claimed nucleic acid sequences structures are required for functional activity, undue trial and error experimentation would be required to reduce or eliminate the activity of the genus of claimed polynucleotides of SEQ ID NO: 1 encoding SHP genes as broadly claimed.
Guidance indicating which domains or motifs confer SHP functional activity is also critical in light of the state of the art: the FRUITFUL gene, which is also a MADS-box gene as is SHP, is a negative regulator of SHP (Ferrandiz et al, 2000, Science, 289:436-438; see Abstract).
Thus, merely knowing that SHP is a MADS-box gene would not permit the skilled artisan to predictably mutate the nucleic acid sequences as broadly claimed because some MADS-box genes are involved promoting dehiscence while others are not.
In fact, cucumber SHP appears to function differently than the Brassica SHP as evidenced by the fact that cucumber SHP is unable to rescue the Arabidopsis shp1 shp2 double mutant (Cheng et al, 2020, Frontiers in Plant Science, 10:1-13; see Abstract).
Therefore, in light of the failure of the specification to teach a structure-function correlation for SHP genes, the lack of working examples for using the genus of nucleic acid sequences in the broad genus of plant species as claimed, the breadth of the claims, and the state of the art which teaches that MADS-box gene family members have different functions and that even SHP appears to function differently in different plant species, the skilled artisan would be unable to predictably make and/or use the genus of nucleic acid sequences as claimed, and would be unable to do so in the methods as claimed.
As such, the skilled practitioner would turn to undue trial and error experimentation for making and/or using the nucleic acid sequences and practicing the methods as claimed. Therefore, in the absence of further guidance, undue experimentation becomes the burden of the practitioner.
Claims 47-65 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Instant claims 47-65 and 67 are broadly drawn to a plant or part thereof comprising at least one mutation in at least three nucleic acid sequences encoding SHP genes, wherein the nucleic acid sequences have as little as 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1-8, wherein the mutation reduces the expression or activity of the gene SHP gene or polypeptide and wherein the plant or part thereof exhibits reduced susceptibility to preharvest dehiscence, methods for producing said plant by introducing mutations into said genes, and a method of making seeds.
The specification describes the identification and characterization of SHP1A, SHP1C, SHP2A, SHP2C, SHP3A, SHP3C, SHP4A and SHP4C Brassica napus genes corresponding to the nucleotides sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1-8, respectively (p. 110 ¶ 0334).
The specification describes that these genes are highly homologous to Arabidopsis SHP1/SHP2 and appear to be involved in the differentiation of DZ. Namely, when these genes are mutated fruits are not lignified and do not shatter: the genes promote lignification (p. 118 ¶ 0347).
The specification describes that there is a correlation between shaking frequency to pod shatter reduction and staining score of lignified layers (p. 119, Tables 7A and B; see also Figure 5).
The written description requirement may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by disclosing relevant and identifying characteristics such as structural or other physical and/or chemical properties, by disclosing functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the invention as claimed. See Eli Lilly,119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
Here, the specification fails to either describe a representative number of nucleic acid sequences as claimed (e.g., see search results), or a correlation between the domains or motifs within the SHP gene that can be mutated to reduce or eliminate functional activity, namely, promoting dehiscence.
This description is critical because the specification describes that SHP genes may have as little as 50% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1-8 (e.g., see p. 14 ¶ 0045) such that the claims encompass an enormous genus of nucleic acid sequences.
For example, a nucleic acid sequences having as little as 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 as encompassed by claims 48 and 60 would have 82 nucleic acid substitutions relative to SEQ ID NO: 1 and would encompass 382 distinct gene variants.
In the absence of describing where in the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1, or any of the other claimed nucleic acid sequences, such variations reduce or eliminate SHP functional activity, the skilled practitioner would not be of the opinion that Applicant possesses the genus of nucleic acids encoding mutated SHP genes because the critical domains or motifs that confer functional activity are unknown.
This description is also critical in light of the state of the art: the FRUITFUL gene, which is also a MADS-box gene as is SHP, is a negative regulator of SHP (Ferrandiz et al, see Abstract).
Thus, merely knowing that SHP is a MADS-box gene is not sufficient to demonstrate to the skilled artisan that Applicant possesses the genus of mutated nucleic acid sequences as claimed because some MADS-box genes are involved in promoting dehiscence while others are not.
In fact, cucumber SHP appears to function differently than the Brassica SHP in as evidenced by the fact that cucumber SHP is unable to rescue the Arabidopsis shp1 shp2 double mutant (Cheng et al, see Abstract).
Thus, in light of the failure of the specification to describe a representative number of mutations to nucleic acid sequences encoding SHP genes or which nucleotides can be mutated to abolish SHP functional activity or a description of a structure-function correlation for the SHP gene, and the state of the art which describes that not all SHP genes are involved in dehiscence, the skilled practitioner would not be of the opinion that Applicant possesses the plants or methods as claimed.
Given the lack of written description in the specification with regard to the nucleic acid sequences as claimed, it is not clear that Applicant was in possession of the invention at the time this application was filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 47, 50-59, 62-65 and 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Liljegren et al (2000, Nature, 404:766-770) in view of Raman et al (2014, PLOS ONE, 9:1-13) and Kord et al (2015, 3 Biotech, 5:271-277) and in further view of Sauer et al (2016, Plant Physiology, 170:1917-1928).
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 47, 50-59, 62-65 and 67 are broadly drawn to a B. napus plant or part thereof comprising at least one mutation in at least three nucleic acid sequences encoding SHP genes, wherein the mutation reduces the expression or activity of the gene SHP gene or polypeptide and wherein the plant or part thereof exhibits reduced susceptibility to preharvest dehiscence, methods for producing said plant by introducing mutations into said genes, an F1 plant having said plant as a parent, a method of making plant seeds by crossing said plant with another plant and a plant produced by growing said seed.
Here, because it was known in the art that SHP genes are involved in the differentiation of the DZ in developing pods in Brassicaceae, the issue is whether it would have been prima facie obvious to mutate at least three SHP genes.
Liljegren et al teach that SHP1 and 2 are MADS-box genes required for fruit dehiscence in Arabidopsis and are functionally redundant: neither single mutant displays a novel phenotype (see Abstract; see also p. 768, col. 1 and 2, last ¶).
Liljergen et al teach that Arabidopsis is closely related to important oilseed crop plants such as canola/B. napus where pod shatter causes average annual yield losses of up to 50% under adverse weather conditions, and that the SHP1/2 double mutants provide a genetic engineering strategy to reduce pod shatter in crops (p. 769, col. 2, last ¶).
Thus, while Liljergen et al reasonably teach, suggest and provide motivation for mutating two SHP genes in B. napus, the issue is whether one would have mutated more than three SHP genes.
To this point, Raman et al teach the mapping of three SHP genes in B. napus (p. 8, col. 1, ¶ 1-4). These genes will be useful for introgression to produce superior genotypes and to accelerate the selection efficiency of favorable alleles for shatter resistance in the practical breeding of B. napus (p. 10, col. 1 and col. 2, last ¶, respectively; see Abstract).
In fact, Kord et al teach that due to redundancy of these genes, resistance to shattering may need to control all of the alleles simultaneously (p. 276, col. 1, penultimate ¶).
Sauer et al teach that single-stranded oligonucleotides (i.e., a GRON system as disclosed in the instant specification: see ¶ 0240) can be predictably used efficiently generate genome edits in DNA in Brassica (see Abstract). The oligonucleotide may comprise a Cy3 Group which are beneficial because they are less toxic in most crop varieties (p. 1917, col. 2) Sauer et al also teach that the CRISPR/Cas9 system was well-known in the art for genome editing (p. 1917, col. 2).
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow and modify the teachings of Liljergen by mutating an additional SHP gene because Raman et al and Kord et al strongly suggest doing so: it was known that there are three SHP genes in B. napus that will be useful for introgression to produce superior genotypes and to accelerate the selection efficiency of favorable alleles for shatter resistance in the practical breeding of B. napus, and that due to SHP gene redundancy, resistance to shattering may need control all of the alleles simultaneously.
One would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Liljergen et al teach that SHP1/2 double mutants provide a genetic engineering strategy to reduce pod shatter in crops. Thus, mutating an additional SHP gene should improve shattering resistance.
One would have found it prima facie obvious to produce frameshift mutations or use a GRON or CRISPR/Cas9 system because to do so it merely a design choice using well-known techniques to reduce or eliminate expression of SHP genes, the importance of which is addressed by each of Liljergen et al, Raman et al and Kord et al.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 47-65 and 67 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,359,208 B2 (referred to herein as ‘208). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 47-65 and 67 are broadly drawn to a plant or part thereof comprising at least one mutation in at least three nucleic acid sequences encoding SHP genes, wherein the nucleic acid sequences have as little as 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1-8, wherein the mutation reduces the expression or activity of the gene SHP gene or polypeptide and wherein the plant or part thereof exhibits reduced susceptibility to preharvest dehiscence, methods for producing said plant by introducing mutations into said genes, and a method of making seeds.
Meanwhile, ‘208 claims a Brassica napus plant comprising homozygous loss of function mutations in a least three SHP polypeptide wherein the gene encoding said polypeptide has a nucleotide sequence with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1-8, wherein the mutation is frameshift mutation that results in a premature stop codon and exhibits reduced susceptibility to preharvest shattering, a method for producing said plant, wherein the mutations are introduced CRISPR or a GRON system, F1 plants produced therefrom, a method of making seeds therefrom comprising crossing said plant with another plant, plants grown from said seed, and wherein the plant has mutations in at least five to eight of the genes.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the instant invention because ‘208 claims a specific plant species comprising at least one mutation in at least three SHP genes as encompassed by the claims.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Claims 48, 49, 60 and 61 appear to be free of the prior art. The closest prior art is that which is cited above but fails to reasonably teach, suggest or provide motivation for mutating three or more of the particularly claimed nucleotide sequences.
The closest prior art is also Tan et al (2009, Botanical Studies, 50:403-412), which teaches SHP2 assigned GenBank Accession No. EU424343 and EU424342 having 99% identity to SEQ ID NO: 7 and 8 of the instant invention, respectively (see Attachment A; see also p. 406, col. 1). However, Tan et al fails to reasonably teach suggest or provide motivation for mutating two or more SHP genes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JASON DEVEAU-ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2828. The Examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am - 4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Joe Zhou can be reached on (571)272-0724. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON DEVEAU ROSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662
ATTACHMENT A
Alignment of GenBank Accession No. EU424343 and SEQ ID NO: 7 of the instant invention
EU424343
LOCUS EU424343 840 bp mRNA linear PLN 03-MAR-2008
DEFINITION Brassica napus shatterproof 2 (SHP2) mRNA, SHP2-b allele, complete
cds.
ACCESSION EU424343
VERSION EU424343.1
KEYWORDS .
SOURCE Brassica napus (rape)
ORGANISM Brassica napus
Eukaryota; Viridiplantae; Streptophyta; Embryophyta; Tracheophyta;
Spermatophyta; Magnoliophyta; eudicotyledons; Gunneridae;
Pentapetalae; rosids; malvids; Brassicales; Brassicaceae;
Brassiceae; Brassica.
REFERENCE 1 (bases 1 to 840)
AUTHORS Xia,Z., Tan,X. and Zhang,L.
TITLE Cloning and Sequence Analysis of Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus) SHP2
Gene
JOURNAL Unpublished
REFERENCE 2 (bases 1 to 840)
AUTHORS Xia,Z., Tan,X. and Zhang,L.
TITLE Direct Submission
JOURNAL Submitted (24-JAN-2008) Jiangsu University, Life Science, Xuefu
Road No.301, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu 212013, China
FEATURES Location/Qualifiers
source 1..840
/organism="Brassica napus"
/mol_type="mRNA"
/db_xref="taxon:3708"
gene 1..840
/gene="SHP2"
/allele="b"
CDS 12..746
/gene="SHP2"
/allele="b"
/note="MADS-box protein; transcription factor"
/codon_start=1
/product="shatterproof 2"
/protein_id="ACA42768.1"
/translation="MEGGASDEVAESSKKIGRGKIEIKRIENTTNRQVTFCKRRNGLL
KKAYELSVLCDAEVALVIFSTRGRLYEYANNSVRGTIERYKKACSDAVNPPSVTEANT
QYYQQESSKLRRQIRDIQNLNRHILGESLGSLNLKELKNLEGRLEKGIGRVRSKKHEM
LVAEIEYMQKREIELQNDNMYLRSKINERAGMQQQEASVIHQQGTVYESSSHQSEQYN
RNYIPVNLLEPNQNSSDQNQPPLQLV"
Query Match 99.8%; Score 733.4; DB 344; Length 840;
Best Local Similarity 99.9%;
Matches 734; Conservative 0; Mismatches 1; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 ATGGAGGGTGGTGCGAGTGATGAAGTAGCAGAGAGCAGCAAGAAGATAGGGAGAGGGAAG 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 12 ATGGAGGGTGGTGCGAGTGATGAAGTAGCAGAGAGCAGCAAGAAGATAGGGAGAGGGAAG 71
Qy 61 ATAGAGATAAAGAGGATAGAGAACACCACGAATCGCCAAGTCACTTTCTGCAAAAGACGC 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 72 ATAGAGATAAAGAGGATAGAGAACACCACGAATCGCCAAGTCACTTTCTGCAAAAGACGC 131
Qy 121 AATGGTCTGCTCAAGAAAGCTTATGAGCTCTCTGTCTTGTGTGACGCTGAGGTTGCTCTT 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 132 AATGGTCTGCTCAAGAAAGCTTATGAGCTCTCTGTCTTGTGTGACGCTGAGGTTGCTCTT 191
Qy 181 GTCATCTTCTCCACTCGCGGTCGTCTCTACGAGTACGCCAACAACAGTGTAAGAGGAACG 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 192 GTCATCTTCTCCACTCGCGGTCGTCTCTACGAGTACGCCAACAACAGTGTAAGAGGAACG 251
Qy 241 ATCGAAAGGTACAAGAAAGCTTGCTCCGACGCTGTTAATCCTCCTTCCGTCACCGAAGCT 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 252 ATCGAAAGGTACAAGAAAGCTTGCTCCGACGCTGTTAATCCTCCTTCCGTCACCGAAGCT 311
Qy 301 AATACTCAATACTATCAGCAAGAGTCATCTAAGCTACGGAGACAGATCCGGGACATTCAG 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 312 AATACTCAATACTATCAGCAAGAGTCATCTAAGCTACGGAGACAGATCCGGGACATTCAG 371
Qy 361 AATCTGAACAGACACATTCTTGGTGAATCTCTCGGTTCCTTGAACCTCAAGGAACTCAAG 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 372 AATCTGAACAGACACATTCTTGGTGAATCTCTCGGTTCCTTGAACCTCAAGGAACTCAAG 431
Qy 421 AACCTCGAAGGTAGGCTTGAAAAAGGCATCGGTCGTGTCCGCTCCAAGAAGCATGAGATG 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 432 AACCTCGAAGGTAGGCTTGAAAAAGGCATCGGTCGTGTCCGCTCCAAGAAGCATGAGATG 491
Qy 481 CTAGTTGCAGAGATAGAGTACATGCAAAAAAGGGAGATCGAGCTTCAAAACGATAACATG 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 492 CTAGTTGCAGAGATAGAGTACATGCAAAAAAGGGAGATCGAGCTTCAAAACGATAACATG 551
Qy 541 TATCTCCGATCCAAGATTAATGAAAGAGCGGGAATGCAGCAGCAGGAAGCGAGTGTGATA 600
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 552 TATCTCCGATCCAAGATTAATGAAAGAGCAGGAATGCAGCAGCAGGAAGCGAGTGTGATA 611
Qy 601 CATCAACAAGGGACGGTTTACGAGTCATCTTCTCATCAGTCGGAGCAGTACAACCGGAAC 660
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 612 CATCAACAAGGGACGGTTTACGAGTCATCTTCTCATCAGTCGGAGCAGTACAACCGGAAC 671
Qy 661 TATATTCCGGTTAACCTTCTTGAACCAAATCAGAACTCCTCCGACCAAAACCAACCACCT 720
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 672 TATATTCCGGTTAACCTTCTTGAACCAAATCAGAACTCCTCCGACCAAAACCAACCACCT 731
Qy 721 CTCCAACTTGTTTAA 735
|||||||||||||||
Db 732 CTCCAACTTGTTTAA 746
Alignment of GenBank Accession No. EU424342 and SEQ ID NO: 8 of the instant invention
EU424342
LOCUS EU424342 840 bp mRNA linear PLN 03-MAR-2008
DEFINITION Brassica napus shatterproof 2 (SHP2) mRNA, SHP2-a allele, complete
cds.
ACCESSION EU424342
VERSION EU424342.1
KEYWORDS .
SOURCE Brassica napus (rape)
ORGANISM Brassica napus
Eukaryota; Viridiplantae; Streptophyta; Embryophyta; Tracheophyta;
Spermatophyta; Magnoliophyta; eudicotyledons; Gunneridae;
Pentapetalae; rosids; malvids; Brassicales; Brassicaceae;
Brassiceae; Brassica.
REFERENCE 1 (bases 1 to 840)
AUTHORS Xia,Z., Tan,X. and Zhang,L.
TITLE Cloning and Sequence Analysis of Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus) SHP2
Gene
JOURNAL Unpublished
REFERENCE 2 (bases 1 to 840)
AUTHORS Xia,Z., Tan,X. and Zhang,L.
TITLE Direct Submission
JOURNAL Submitted (24-JAN-2008) Jiangsu University, Life Science, Xuefu
Road No.301, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu 212013, China
FEATURES Location/Qualifiers
source 1..840
/organism="Brassica napus"
/mol_type="mRNA"
/db_xref="taxon:3708"
gene 1..840
/gene="SHP2"
/allele="a"
CDS 12..746
/gene="SHP2"
/allele="a"
/note="MADS-box protein; transcription factor"
/codon_start=1
/product="shatterproof 2"
/protein_id="ACA42767.1"
/translation="MEGGASDEVAESSKKIGRGKIEIKRIENTTNRQVTFCKRRNGLL
KKAYELSVLCDAEVALVIFSTRGRLYEYANNSVRGTIERYKKACSDAVNPPSVTEANT
QYYQQESSKLRRQIRDIQNLNRHILGESLGSLNLKELKNLEGRLEKGIGRVRSKKHEM
LVAEIEYMQKREIELQNDNMYLRSKISERAGMQQQEASVIHQQGTVYESSSHQSEQYN
RNYIPVNLLEPNQNSSDQNQPPLQLV"
Query Match 99.6%; Score 731.8; DB 344; Length 840;
Best Local Similarity 99.7%;
Matches 733; Conservative 0; Mismatches 2; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 ATGGAGGGTGGTGCGAGTGATGAGGTAGCAGAGAGCAGCAAGAAGATAGGGAGAGGGAAG 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 12 ATGGAGGGTGGTGCGAGTGATGAGGTAGCAGAGAGCAGCAAGAAGATAGGGAGAGGGAAG 71
Qy 61 ATAGAGATAAAGAGGATAGAGAACACCACGAATCGCCAAGTCACTTTCTGCAAAAGACGC 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 72 ATAGAGATAAAGAGGATAGAGAACACCACGAATCGCCAAGTCACTTTCTGCAAAAGACGC 131
Qy 121 AATGGTCTGCTTAAGAAAGCTTATGAGCTCTCTGTCTTGTGTGACGCTGAGGTTGCTCTT 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 132 AATGGTCTGCTTAAGAAAGCTTATGAGCTCTCTGTCTTGTGTGACGCTGAGGTTGCTCTT 191
Qy 181 GTCATCTTCTCCACTCGAGGTCGTCTCTACGAGTACGCCAACAACAGTGTAAGAGGAACG 240
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 192 GTCATCTTCTCCACTCGAGGTCGTCTCTACGAGTACGCCAACAACAGTGTAAGAGGAACG 251
Qy 241 ATTGAAAGGTACAAGAAAGCTTGCTCCGACGCTGTTAATCCTCCTTCCGTCACCGAAGCT 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 252 ATTGAAAGGTACAAGAAAGCTTGCTCCGACGCTGTTAATCCTCCTTCCGTCACCGAAGCT 311
Qy 301 AATACTCAGTACTATCAGCAAGAATCGTCTAAGCTACGGAGACAGATCCGGGACATTCAG 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 312 AATACTCAGTACTATCAGCAAGAATCGTCTAAGCTACGGAGACAGATCCGGGACATTCAG 371
Qy 361 AATCTGAACAGACACATTCTTGGTGAATCTCTTGGTTCCTTGAACCTCAAGGAGCTCAAG 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 372 AATCTGAACAGACACATTCTTGGTGAATCTCTTGGTTCCTTGAACCTCAAGGAGCTCAAG 431
Qy 421 AACCTGGAAGGTAGGCTTGAGAAAGGCATCGGTCGTGTCCGCTCCAAGAAGCATGAGATG 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 432 AACCTGGAAGGTAGGCTTGAGAAAGGCATCGGTCGTGTCCGCTCCAAGAAGCATGAGATG 491
Qy 481 CTAGTTGCAGAGATAGAGTACATGCAAAAAAGGGAGATCGAGCTTCAAAACGACAACATG 540
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||
Db 492 CTAGTTGCAGAGATAGAGTACATGCAAAAAAGGGAGATCGAGCTTCAAAACGATAACATG 551
Qy 541 TATCTTCGATCCAAGATTAGTGAAAGAGCAGGAATGCAGCAGCAGGAAGCGAGTGTGATA 600
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 552 TATCTTCGATCCAAGATTAGTGAAAGAGCAGGAATGCAGCAGCAGGAAGCGAGTGTGATA 611
Qy 601 CATCAACAAGGGACGGTTTACGAGTCGTCTTCCCATCAGTCGGAGCAGTACAACCGGAAC 660
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 612 CATCAACAAGGGACGGTTTACGAGTCGTCTTCTCATCAGTCGGAGCAGTACAACCGGAAC 671
Qy 661 TATATTCCGGTTAACCTTCTTGAACCAAATCAGAACTCCTCCGACCAAAACCAACCACCT 720
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 672 TATATTCCGGTTAACCTTCTTGAACCAAATCAGAACTCCTCCGACCAAAACCAACCACCT 731
Qy 721 CTCCAACTTGTTTAA 735
|||||||||||||||
Db 732 CTCCAACTTGTTTAA 746