题目内容

"Before the operation, I would look at someone and all I could see for their face was jelly," says Jonathan Wyatt "Now, I can see people"s faces." The 65-year-old is one of six people in the world to receive gene therapy for a【C1】type of inherited eye disease【C2】choroideremia(an eye disease). The first published【C3】of the trial, released today, suggest that【C4】people"s genes can stop the disease from causing blindness—and【C5】sight in those whose vision has become【C6】. Choroideremia is caused by【C7】in the CHM gene. In those who have the disease, a【C8】of REP-1 means that cells in the eyes stop working and slowly begin to【C9】causing blindness. Enter gene therapy, which uses a virus to insert a【C10】copy of a gene into cells with a gene defect and could【C11】be used to treat many genetic conditions. Robert MacLaren of the University of Oxford and his colleagues decided to see if it could【C12】choroideremia. Starting two years ago with Wyatt, they【C13】a virus carrying a corrective copy of the CHM gene into the eyes of people with choroideremia. Today the team【C14】that of the six people who received the treatment six months【C15】or longer, all have described【C16】in their vision. Still, the long-lasting effects of the treatment remain【C17】Wyatt had the treatment first, so can【C18】that the benefits seem to last two years,【C19】he"s just one case. The treatment also can"t replace cells that have been【C20】destroyed. 【C15】

A. ago
B. ahead
C. later
D. on

查看答案

搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈

更多问题

"Before the operation, I would look at someone and all I could see for their face was jelly," says Jonathan Wyatt "Now, I can see people"s faces." The 65-year-old is one of six people in the world to receive gene therapy for a【C1】type of inherited eye disease【C2】choroideremia(an eye disease). The first published【C3】of the trial, released today, suggest that【C4】people"s genes can stop the disease from causing blindness—and【C5】sight in those whose vision has become【C6】. Choroideremia is caused by【C7】in the CHM gene. In those who have the disease, a【C8】of REP-1 means that cells in the eyes stop working and slowly begin to【C9】causing blindness. Enter gene therapy, which uses a virus to insert a【C10】copy of a gene into cells with a gene defect and could【C11】be used to treat many genetic conditions. Robert MacLaren of the University of Oxford and his colleagues decided to see if it could【C12】choroideremia. Starting two years ago with Wyatt, they【C13】a virus carrying a corrective copy of the CHM gene into the eyes of people with choroideremia. Today the team【C14】that of the six people who received the treatment six months【C15】or longer, all have described【C16】in their vision. Still, the long-lasting effects of the treatment remain【C17】Wyatt had the treatment first, so can【C18】that the benefits seem to last two years,【C19】he"s just one case. The treatment also can"t replace cells that have been【C20】destroyed. 【C16】

A. compliments
B. settlements
C. improvements
D. fragments

"Before the operation, I would look at someone and all I could see for their face was jelly," says Jonathan Wyatt "Now, I can see people"s faces." The 65-year-old is one of six people in the world to receive gene therapy for a【C1】type of inherited eye disease【C2】choroideremia(an eye disease). The first published【C3】of the trial, released today, suggest that【C4】people"s genes can stop the disease from causing blindness—and【C5】sight in those whose vision has become【C6】. Choroideremia is caused by【C7】in the CHM gene. In those who have the disease, a【C8】of REP-1 means that cells in the eyes stop working and slowly begin to【C9】causing blindness. Enter gene therapy, which uses a virus to insert a【C10】copy of a gene into cells with a gene defect and could【C11】be used to treat many genetic conditions. Robert MacLaren of the University of Oxford and his colleagues decided to see if it could【C12】choroideremia. Starting two years ago with Wyatt, they【C13】a virus carrying a corrective copy of the CHM gene into the eyes of people with choroideremia. Today the team【C14】that of the six people who received the treatment six months【C15】or longer, all have described【C16】in their vision. Still, the long-lasting effects of the treatment remain【C17】Wyatt had the treatment first, so can【C18】that the benefits seem to last two years,【C19】he"s just one case. The treatment also can"t replace cells that have been【C20】destroyed. 【C19】

A. but
B. so
C. then
D. and

I won"t be modest. I am gratified to discover that a paper I penned on inequality made its way into Matt Miller"s Washington Post column last week. Mr Miller asks why rising inequality has not【C1】America"s least-favored classes to agitate for a【C2】He agrees with my verdict: that access to【C3】goods among the least well-off has ensured that material inequality is not as【C4】as income inequality. 【C5】modem conveniences have taken some of the【C6】out of a relatively small income. This in turn has【C7】the drive to seek causes of and cures for【C8】"s discomfort. So the gap between rich and poor is sometimes less【C9】, even if it is great and growing. Day-to-day experience is mostly a matter of our【C10】circumstances, and if those are【C11】enough, a widening gap in income, consumption or wealth is【C12】to come often to our attention. Even if the abstract fact of rising inequality does come across our radar, it may【C13】our sense of justice only if we"ve become convinced that inequality itself is【C14】, or if we face related catastrophes. When I wrote the paper, official measures of income inequality had increased a good deal over the past few decades【C15】consumption inequality seemed to have remained【C16】New research suggests that consumption inequality has been increasing with income inequality【C17】This may be true, but it seems【C18】to the question of why America"s poor aren"t storming the barriers. The consumption data concerns how much we【C19】, not how we experience what we buy, and that"s the real issue. Even if we could agree that inequality in real standards of living is rising, this is not something we actually experience unless we are hungry, or【C20】with the entertainments of our leisure. 【C18】

A. relevant
B. close
C. linked
D. irrelevant

I won"t be modest. I am gratified to discover that a paper I penned on inequality made its way into Matt Miller"s Washington Post column last week. Mr Miller asks why rising inequality has not【C1】America"s least-favored classes to agitate for a【C2】He agrees with my verdict: that access to【C3】goods among the least well-off has ensured that material inequality is not as【C4】as income inequality. 【C5】modem conveniences have taken some of the【C6】out of a relatively small income. This in turn has【C7】the drive to seek causes of and cures for【C8】"s discomfort. So the gap between rich and poor is sometimes less【C9】, even if it is great and growing. Day-to-day experience is mostly a matter of our【C10】circumstances, and if those are【C11】enough, a widening gap in income, consumption or wealth is【C12】to come often to our attention. Even if the abstract fact of rising inequality does come across our radar, it may【C13】our sense of justice only if we"ve become convinced that inequality itself is【C14】, or if we face related catastrophes. When I wrote the paper, official measures of income inequality had increased a good deal over the past few decades【C15】consumption inequality seemed to have remained【C16】New research suggests that consumption inequality has been increasing with income inequality【C17】This may be true, but it seems【C18】to the question of why America"s poor aren"t storming the barriers. The consumption data concerns how much we【C19】, not how we experience what we buy, and that"s the real issue. Even if we could agree that inequality in real standards of living is rising, this is not something we actually experience unless we are hungry, or【C20】with the entertainments of our leisure. 【C14】

A. just
B. fair
C. unreasonable
D. unjust