Function

I might be wrong, but could it mean different haplotypes per gene (set)? I mean, I'm looking at the peak at chromosome 6, and if I'm not mistaken, that's where HLA comes in (long story short: HLA is an important family of proteins presenting antigens to CD4+/CD8+ T-lymphocytes (MHC class II type HLA (DR, DQ) and MHC class I type HLA (A, B, C, E are the most important ones), respectively. (If you're wondering: MHC = major histocompatibility complex; the complex of genes on Cx6 of which transcription and subsequent translation results in HLA)

Now, you have to know, that there are much subtypes of HLA. Every single person has a full set of HLA-proteins, and can express 2 types of HLA-A, 2 types of HLA-B, ..., 2 types of HLA-DR, 2 types of HLA-DQ, ...

Why 2 types? Your mother and father have 2 different types themselves, and then there's you, resulting from a combination of 2 of those 4 subtypes.

With subtype, I mean e.g. HLA-DR*0401, HLA-A2 (with different subtypes *020X with X being another number) ... I'm not sure whether I should speak of haplotypes, allotypes, ..., because we've never gotten these terms explained well ...

While we're at it: could someone explain allotype, haplotype?

Well, altogether: there are about 15 000 possible HLA-subtypes. I think that's responsible for the peak. And I think the highest point you see there, is a subtype of HLA-A2. If I'm not mistaken, (a subtype of) HLA-A2 is present in about 50% of the population.

An specific example: people who carry a copy of HLA-DR4 with a specific amino acid configuration (L67,Q70,K/R71 instead of e.g. I67,D70,E71) are at higher risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (the specific HLA-DR4 subtype is capable of presenting citrullinated proteins - which happen to pop up in every single one of us - to CD4+ T-lympho's, inducing the whole cellular inflammation cascade), though other factors need to be present as well (PTPN22-deficit: the phosphatase won't be able to nib phosphate off of the T-cell receptors (type Trk), leaving it constitutively active for HLA-DR4)

So I think the reason why there's so many variation in number of Y-axis-units here, is the possibility of variation in the presentation of the proteins for which the genes depicted code

I could, but I'm not sure I'm allowed to target 1 person. And I wouldn't want to; answering questions here should be completely voluntarily and free of any pressure. Mentioning someone is already quite the pressure.

I'd love to, but I'm not qualified anyway. Don't know any word that's written there, sorry. I was yammering about formalities.

Is it graded? Wouldn't that then count as fraud?

And that doesn't work here that way. Show us what you already know on the subject and your own shots at having given it a try.

Amount of protein? Same as humans, I think ... Electrophoresis of serum proteins

Hi there,

 

I am a Biological Science PhD student, I am looking (as always) to expand my knowledge and improve upon the existing body I have built. Particularly I am interested in no one subject alone rather trying to look at the interactions between all.

 

Thanks for having me too!

Bienvenu! Make yourself at home

(1) How were you planning to extract your own neurons?

(2) If not: impossible to make them out of stem cells; I'm afraid you would not have the appropriate knowledge of recoding stem cells in omnipotent germ line cells, let alone make them differntiate into neur(on)al tissue

(3) Only way I can think of is by you hurting yourself. Don't. It's not worth it. Whatever you try to do probably already has been done.

(4) You can't grow neurons from neurons. Neurons don't divide. You have the repertory in your brain and that's it. And if neurons die, which will most obviously happen when you try to extract them from your own body, you can't revive them.

(5) Don't even think of extracting hippocampal neurons from your own brain (reading this sentence does make that a contradictio in terminis; but you get the point).

Magic

Or an embryo. Or equivalent stem cells. You asking if it is legal is basically an argument for me to answer with "not for you, it isn't".

Depends on where you live .. I could give you tons of site for equipment when you live in Belgium, for instance, but I won't be able to if you live in the US

What is your definition of f'(x) ?

 

Are you sure the question does not say

 

If f(x) is differentiable at x_o then prove that.....etc ?

 

Consider f(x) = |x| at x_o = 0

I've lost all my maths skills (except for statistics), but we always denoted the derivative function of f(x) as f'(x).

4. he is so excited at midnight, why ?

he longs for inter - communicating with women at midnight, what's the problem of this guy ?

 

5. he gets up too late and may have sleep disorder.

he doesn't sleep at night. he must sleep during daytime on weekends.

What if he works night shifts?

In that case he fails to empathize with the context of others, and may find it needless to say that people are awake at night, a naturalness.

 

I'm not being closed-minded. OK - maybe he does have a personality disorder, but this disorder causes him to behave like a jerk. I'm looking at it from the point of view of a girl who is being bullied/manipulated/played with, and this was my first consideration.

The question arises to which degree we, in those cases, remain responsible for our own behaviour.

Of course, we remain responsible for it ourselves, for a personality and/or psychiatric disorder change us as a person and change our behaviour in extension. We are our brains and therefore we are also the disorders that come with it.

That's one way to see it.

Another way to see it is, especially in acquired personality disorders: can we distinguish ourselves (i.e. before acquisition of the psychiatric disorder) from who we are now, with the disorder, and can we blame the acquired disorder, therefore not our 'original self' for our deeds and behaviour?

This is a truly fascinating topic and could lead to multiple points of view regarding accountability of crimes and unethical deeds. A topic I'd very much like to discuss as we are speaking and for which its discussion I'm really open. Much overlap with medical and public ethics; should someone with a brain tumour who's had anger exacerbations be in jail when he killed someone? Psychiatry? ... ? To which degree are pedophiles themselves responsible for their deeds? Jail or psychiatry? Belgian child offender and molester Marc Dutroux resides in jail now, sentenced to lifelong imprisonment. I wonder the efficacy of his imprisonment and am in dubio whether he wouldn't be better off in psychiatry.

Ergo, is the guy a jerk? Or does the disorder make him act like a jerk? A criminal is more than the deed he committed. He is still a human, possibly even a kind and good one, too. The question persists whether the deed is a conseuence of man himself, or of the conditions in which he resides (including disorders).

Then again, this would lead to a situation in which almost all criminals are referred to psychiatry instead of jail. Which would lead to an impossible situation practically (lack of psychiatrists and places, ...), but also, and not in the least, economically.

I never gave it much thought, truth be told. You could see "negative" as "the opposite of ..."

Imagine that in front of all positive numbers is an imaginary (I should be careful here with my terminology, but I don't think using the word 'imaginary' will confound your understanding of basic operations with negative numbers) "plus-sign". But because it is too trivial of writing it down, we leave it away, except when it comes after another number of letter, to distinguish it from a multiplication (ab vs. a + b).

So let's take a random positive number, say a.

You could write it down as: (+a).

Put a minus sign in front of it: -(+a). Which then would mean as much as: the opposite of (+a).

The "opposite" of a number is the absolute value of that number, but with another sign

The opposite of a positive number is, of course, the negative version of its absolute value: -(+a) = -(|a|) = (-a)

Now if you were to put a minus sign in front of that:

-(-a), you'd want to take the opposite of (-a). The opposite of (-a) is the absolute value of (-a), that is, |(-a)|, which is just (a) (or (+a), as mentioned before). Then take the opposite sign; the original in (-a) was -, so that becomes +|(-a)| = (+a) or just a.

---

Long story, made over complicated, short:

Consensus.

a = a
-1 * a = -a

-1 * (-1 * a) = -1 * (-a) = a

-1 * (-1) = 1

To a brighter future, and a better life!

Happy 2017 and 2016-Incineration!

He is an insensitive jerk not worth bothering with.

Come on, a bit more open-minded. If he has (and I don't know if he has, but instinctively I'd say he does) a personality disorder, I find it harsh to say such things.

Well everyone has their flaws and it's up to Anne herself whether she's right or not; we can't tell if she's right about her own feeling (though I'd share her feeling lol)

Sorry, felt like that. But I might read it more detailed later.

Happy New Year!

Oh my ... I should take a break from (stu)dying immediately. And I must stop assuming that one only reacts to "fresh" posts.

At a guess, it's among the medical specialities for those whom don't like blood and those whom like to control people.

Psychiatry is the governments best friend. I have noticed that, for the most part, psychiatry prescribes medicine that slows people down [antipsychotics, minor and major tranquilisers] Rarely do we see stimulants prescribed, except in children and some adults with add or adhd.

They rarely test for a diagnosis except to monitor ones response to a drug, if that fails, they use another drug until one finally works.

It has been reported that often, people respond equally as well, sometimes better, when prescribed a placebo.

The best psychiatrists are neurologists as they have a better understanding of the workings of the brain and nervous system.

 

Having said the above, many lives have been saved and changed by psychiatrists yet few if any have been cured.

Seriously? Conspiracy theories about psychiatry? You asked for it. -1.

And why are we having this discussion again? I thought we already sorted out this issue in a comparable way, discussing whether psychology were a science or not?

Why even bother? No physician will prescribe one in uncomplicated hypertension ... Medications that are prescribed are thiazide diuretics, beta blockers, calcium antagonists, ACE-inhibitors and sartans... to a lesser degree central antihypertensive drugs and alpha-1-blockers (sympathicolytic drug)

I'm not aware of drugs that actively enhance the functioning of the PSy NS, but you might want to look up AChEI's ([acetyl]cholinesterase inhibitors)

The criteria you give make it rather impossible to find a drug.

Hello everyone

I was wondering if anyone had the same problem as I regularly have when I have to study lists and enumerations:

When I try to remember the items, I can remember all of them, but 1. Mostly the most difficult/complex/longest one. When I then look at the list, I recall the item. Then, when I try to reproduce the list, again, the item fails to come up in my mind.

Then again I look at the list. But then, when I try to reproduce the list again, I succeed in naming the item I always forgot.

The problem? I now forgot another item. Not seldomly the one I remembered the best before.

Anyone else experiencing this? In best case, anyone with an explanation?

Thanks!

F

I'm no expert whatsoever, rather a rookie, but let me give it a try ...

First of all, unhealthy food does, generally spoken, not induce inflammation, but may contribute to it (cf. omega-6 fatty lipids), as far as I'm aware of. Leaving alone food contaminated with pathogens.

Second, an inflammatory response needs an inducing mechanism. I'm not going too far in to details - mostly because I've forgotten most of it by now, I have to recap this matter for my exams in January and haven't given it attention anymore since Octobre - but you'd first of all have to understand that all normal human cells express a certain membraneous protein, of the HLA-E family.

Long story short: NK-cells (natural killer cells), some sort of white blood cells, act by recognizing the absence of HLA-E on membranes. That's a first mechanism how our own immune system (quite innate, not adapted) fails (luckily enough) to attack our own body. NK-cells kill other cells with granzymes and perforins (cf. MAC-complex described below)

But before NK gets there, pathogens are bound by "complement factor" C3. I should recheck what this specifically induces, but I recall that it acts by activating C5-C9 (other complement factors), collectively called a MAC-complex (membrane attack complex; forgive me for saying complex twice), inducing holes in the cell membranes of the 'victims'.

Again, your own cells express some proteins at their membraneous surface (it had to do something with "H" or "I" in its name ... or was it "F"?), which cleave the C3-complex upon binding, preventing it from telling MAC to destroy the cell.

Finally, the selection of T- and B-cells ... Now this is really complicated, but to make a long story short and over-simplified: in the maturation of T- and B-cells (so when they aren't up to fighting against anything harmful yet), they are being exposed to human proteins. Now, if I recall correctly, but this is something I'm absolutely not sure about anymore, there's this AIRE-thing in your thymus, responsible for expressing all human proteins you could ever imagine, you'd ever make or you'd ever made. Complex mechanisms: when an immature T-cell, which undergoes maturation in the thymus, binds a protein of which its production is induced by AIRE, it goes in apoptosis. If it would happen that it'd still survive its own thorn of apoptosis, and later bind a human protein, it'd probably go in anergy (state of uselessness, followed by apoptosis).

Comparable mechanism for B-cells. I guess. Everything else gets the full-blown thorn of the innate and adapted immune system.

But I'm not sure about these mechanisms anymore. Ask me again on January 20 (then is my exam on infections and immunity).

Sorry! Happy Hunger Games!

Oh, and Merry Christmas!

EDIT: oh my silly me ... I thought MonDie's message was the OP ... How did that happen ... Ah well, I'm not going to delete everything, enjoy the knowledge and its potential flaws!

I'm also a bit confused. Only thing I can think of, but that wouldn't be transmembraneous diffusion, but transepitheliar "diffusion", is the invasion of enteric/colic bacteria; think of Salmonella spp. inducing broadening of transepitheliar gaps between the epithelium of your intestines to enter the body and cause mayhem.

Let's continue the list: bladder sphincter; the bladder itself; external urethral sphincter

Since you don't specify striated muscles:

All smooth muscles associated to unpaired vessels (basilar artery, aorta, that weird sacral artery, ... and then I'm not even talking about lymph vessels)

What about the occipitofrontalis muscle? Is it a solistic muscle? What about its embryology: solistic or dual formation? (Cf. e.g. mandible or, more related to it, the frontal, parietal bones themselves which are embriologically formed pairwise and fused together in a later stadium [sutures, fontanelles])

Then again; I can pull up my eyebrows apart from one another

@Function

"We are not to judge people based on their beliefs and religion,"

- i just gauged their logical thinking but i never said they are wrong or wat their beleiving is false. people who lacks logical/rational thinking are hard to talk to and i don't plan on arguing with them. do u think i do not understand?

Truth be told, sometimes I envy highly religious people, for my views on what life and the end is are rather depressing compared to religious solutions. Let me react to some things you said: I just found it not right to say that people who lack possibilities of logical thinking are, or would act, 4-7 years younger than their biological age, or ugly, or unreasonably whiny; or that most of them do not have a solid understanding of love. Don't they? Do you? What love is, is most personal, and we are the last ones to judge others their perception on what love is.

"Only few of them thinks [sic, recte think] deeply about future. believing easily to rumors/gossip. very self-centered."

Than that's their 'problem'. I have strong beliefs that this thread be better off in the lounge.

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."

- have you even encounter religious people who ridicule science but when someone trying to question the facts claim of their religion, you always hear "respect"? we are always the one who needs to be understanding (i just breathe my sigh into this world)

The Lounge is ideal for breathing sighs into the world.

 

@Function

"I acknowledge the infringement of the human rights in that case. But since I don't have any kind of control over them, over their thoughts, nor over their actions whatsoever, I cannot say anything else than that I pity them."

- you need to learn when to concede

Argue, please.

"I find mental restriction from religious beliefs extremely ugly."

- why do u mean by mental restriction? no one had influenced me to become a freethinker (or atheist or realist or watever the term for those who dont believe in superstitions). i just see bible as like a fable book who teaches moral lesson but their claim of facts is something i cant agree with them. lol i do not know wats this mental restriction u r talking about? just because we dont acknowledge it as true?

Since you put this under a message directed towards me, a counter-reaction rather pro forma: I never said this. DrKrettin did.