mortonman1

Ok all of that made sense luckily, even though I don't have much knowledge of it. i was wondering however, that if the gp41 and/or gp120 proteins changed, that would reduce efficiency of getting into host cell?

Okay, so somehow the DNA sets itself up to mutate, without making mistakes in other areas besides glycoproteins. How? and what changes? please be specific

I don't know! ha Thats what i want to know. what I know is that glycoproteins change, most like gp41 and gp120. I know not much more

how does a HiV virus mutate. Im not asking what it mutates, only how. Any answers are fine with me, including what happens, what changes, but try to stick to how. Thanks guys. all answers appreciated

For me, I explain free will by explaining what it isn't. it isn't when God chooses every action we take, thus that would make us puppets. So free will is just our ability to think, reason and decide actions to take.

There is good book called Mere Christianity by C.S. lewis, that in the first 2 chapters talks about exactly what your asking. He says that there is a moral law within all humans(Law of decent behavior) and that there is no way to deny it. he says that we would not no bad, if we did not know good from birth. Almost like calling a bent line "bent" because we have seen a 'strait" line before. If one had never seen the strait line, than he/she would not know bent

Are you asking what is the typical concentrations? or how do the T-cells get there? i only know the answer to the how, which has to do with chemokines and cytokines moving the cells by chemotaxis. (im pretty sure you know this, but just in case that was your question) Good luck!

shoot! ok im new to this so im working on it. sorry. so i meant the receptor. or the TCR to be specific, since im talking about a T-cell. right?

ok. Im still confused about CD's. what im saying above is the there are proteins(antigens) that bind to other proteins(antibodies) and the antigens bind to the epitope. so can we make an antigen that has one side for binding to an antibody, and on the other side of the antigen, have an antibody. so it would be a huge protein, but it would allow for antigens to bind to an antigen. the advantage in this is making the antigen reception site code for whatever antigen we want. make sense? still weird probably. i need to draw it.

or he gets into a bar fight and eats someone inside out(parasite/virus)! then the police come(immune system).

Hi everyone. So my last post on here was about exchanging CD3 molecules from delta T-cells to alpha. Clearly this is really stupid since all T-cells have CD3 and then they also have CD4 and CD8(correct me if Im wrong). So more or less I want to first apologize for that. The reason im posting is a new idea. I was wondering if one can manufacture an antigen to bind to an antibody, but on the other side of the antigen(the side not attached to the antibody) have a second epitope for other antigens to bind. This way we can manually select T-cells and B-cells to code for what we want. This specifically would be for HIV. Thanks for replies

Hey man, any thinking is good thinking in my opinion. Your theory isn't bad, it all has to start somewhere. In my opinion your right. I am in the same position as you however, I am no scientist, just a kid with huge ambitions about knowledge. I think that there is negative mass in black holes attracting mass, but black holes aren't immortal, and will end once equilibrium of mass is equated. i think it's relatively ridiculous to postulate any factual theories on black holes, since we can't get close to them, and we aren't close to any anyways-- if we were we'd die. i think? So ya. I am sure others have their opinions too, but im expressing mine, as that is what you wanted

ok thanks. ill do my research.

perfect answer thank you. Now answer my question about the orgin of the universe. "This little theory led me to think that the orgin of the universe could have been from to small particles that gained infinite potential gravitational energy because they were the only two particles in the universe, and they thus collided, creating the big bang. according to newtons universal gravitational constant, this is merely impossible, but he didn't take into account any theoretical universes with no other matter or masses around."

O alright. i see kinda what you mean. Well thank you

well i understand what both of you mean i think. I have no idea what Lunar variation is however... so if your willing to explain thatd be great. So in response to Spyman, that space ship in between the moon and the sun wouldn't be at equilibrium with gravity right? if the ship were let go, considering it werent in orbit, it would go to the earth right?

Ya i understand that it mutates, i think i mentioned that, but that's what i don't quite understand. I guess the pathogen, in this case HIV, is unaffected by the CD protein it has? so when it mutates it doesn't affect the process that the HIV virus undergoes to stay alive. Thats strange. How does it even mutate? Does DNA Polymerase and Rna polymerase purposefully allow mutations for the glycoproteins?

Hi, I have never taken physics, i am in high school, but i had a little theory i was hoping you guys could comment on. I was thinking that the earth's gravity would be a lot greater if the moon and sun didn't exist. This is because the moon's gravity, is taking away from the Earths, and the earths from the moons. i know occording to what they teach you this isnt true, but i just want you to think about ity for a second and get back to me. i really appreciate it. And i tried calculations and found that there is a loss of .13m/s squared between the earth and moon due to interfering gravity. unfortunately, im almost positive my math is slightly off. try it yourself and see what you get personally. i wont tell you my process yet so that it doesnt interfere with your style of thought. This little theory led me to think that the orgin of the universe could have been from to small particles that gained infinite potential gravitational energy because they were the only two particles in the universe, and they thus collided, creating the big bang. according to newtons universal gravitational constant, this is merely impossible, but he didn't take into account any theoretical universes with no other matter or masses around. let me know! thanks

i like the idea. but plants use bulk flow as their main way of making the water move up the stem. so when you think of it going up and falling down, i doubt itll work unless you have a root system capable of creating bulk flow for the water to go up the stem. the main source of water going up a stem is sunlight, and/or transpiration. the leaves lose water through its stomata and creates a vaccum so that water goes to replace the area where water just was--- if that makes sense. so for your mackine to work, you need; one, a tree. the tree would use transpiration and bulk flow to get water, but then you would thus extract that water to get it to go down your generators. when you extract the water, that means the leaves DONT get water, and thus the tree dies. so unless you can manually feed the chloroplasts water, it wont perform photosynthesis, and will die. its a good idea though. if you figure out an idea as a counter to this, PM me or reply

Hi, This is my first post. I have practically no background in bio but I am very interested in pursuing it as a major-- i'm only in high school. I am very interested and curious about immunology. heres my question: I got this from wikipedia.... Since CD4 receptor binding is the most obvious step in HIV infection, gp120 was among the first targets of HIV vaccine research. Efforts to develop HIV vaccines targeting gp120, however, have been hampered by the chemical and structural properties of gp120, which make it difficult for antibodies to bind to it. gp120 can also easily be shed from the surface of the virus and captured by T cells due to its loose binding with gp41. A conserved region in the gp120 glycoprotein that is involved in the metastable attachment of gp120 to CD4 has now been identified and targeting of invariant region has been achieved with a broadly neutralising antibody, b12. Since gp120 is diffficult to bind to, why cant they genetically engineer effector cells to produce the antigen receptor for gp120? also, what about it chemical composition makes it so hard to bind to? also, how many variations of CD proteins can a glycoprotein for a pathogen have? i was wondering because people say that HIV mutates so that its practically impossible to create a vaccine, so how many different glycoproteins can it make? 10^10??? lastly, whats the difference between a MHC protein and a CD protein? Thanks a lot for any answers i get. its appreciated.