Genecks

Some of this is relevant: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51542-lab-design/page__view__findpost__p__567878

So, I've come to consider that there may be times I'm required to go to talks, seminars, you know... those things that can last about an hour. Some guy stands up, talks about his research, shows a bunch of data, and the professor expects me to remember a good chunk of it for the next exam. I've been to a couple, but it has never been requested of me to do such for an exam (sucks the fun out of them). As of late, it has been. The talk is over, but I still can't help but feel that I could have done better. There is the simple fact that I've never been taught once how to go to one of these things and prepare to digest and study them. At best, I could look up the professor, but I couldn't figure out what his talk was about. The title was very misleading after the talk was done (in my opinion). So, here are some of the issues I had: 1) I couldn't really keep up with the guy explaining his data 2) I couldn't make sense of his graphs and he went through them quite quickly (he didn't explain the terms) 3) The data he did show was from research works, but only the authors and years were given: No titles were given. 4) I can't recall a lot of what he discussed I asked the guy if I could have a copy of the slides after it was all said and done, and he told me he wasn't willing because he supposedly had trouble with animal rights groups the last time gave up his slides to people. I guess I could see that since his research seemed somewhat not really brand new. Still, I'm not sure how I will do with the questions on the exam in relation to this seminar. I'm somewhat pissed about the entire ordeal. I didn't really have a decent way to prime myself, and I really don't quite remember what some of the main things out of the talk were. I can't tell if I have a memory deficit or if it's just normal to go to a seminar and not really recall half of what some guy just talked about. What do you guys think about that recall aspect? Any information about past seminar/talk experiences you have and how you handled digesting their material would be great. I'm not sure sure what to think about this stuff.

You need to be more specific. In general, you make a solution, heat it up, and pour it into a tube/plate. Look on youtube for videos. As a note, the stuff is temperature sensitive.

Hmm. Maybe it's time to buy a tank of helium. Maybe my descendants 300 years from now will find helium to be a gold mine. I find that if something can go back into the atmosphere where people can readily attempt to collect it, then it's not too much of a problem to lose it. Technology (hopefully) would advance to the point where we can recollect gaseous materials. However, if such a technology could not occur, then surely loss of helium would be a serious issue. Then again, considering the economic costs to develop such technology and allow people to use it? Well, maybe a tank of helium 300 years from now would be worth about what $1500 USD is now these days. I can imagine (not theoretically, though) someone building a catalytic system to recollect helium. If such a systeme could be developed, then surely helium loss would not be such a great issue.

Here is a list of what has been bugging me in relation to Drosophila development: We'll take it step by step: Why is it that the gurken mRNA is inhibited from traveling ventrally? Is it that ventral follicle cells lack the torpedo receptor? If so, why do they lack the torpedo receptor? Perhaps this is all dependent on which materials the mother dumps into the egg first. Perhaps the concentration is tightly regulated? Also, should this be considered a molecular biology question?

I find that if a person is a professional and forgets something, he or she can quickly refer to a book, manual, guide, etc.. in order to eventually remember that particular something. In college, you have to practice recall and abstraction of known material. If you're goal is to become skilled and apply those skills, I would suggest at least reading an introductory genetics book and a book on bacterial genetics. Furthermore, I would also suggest getting use to the idea of messing with Drosophila flies. Bacteria and drosophila would be two good models for any undergrad to practice and understand genetics. In general, by doing those things, you're kind of really doing the undergraduate education of a genetics class and laboratory. It's the process I underwent at least. Why bacteria and flies? They are cheap, easily accessible, and many introductory genetics books make it their mission to discuss bacteria and Drosophila genetics. Furthermore, bacteria offer themselves as a haploid organism (and the transcription/translation process is different in bacteria) and Drosophila offer themselves as a diploid organism (and against the eukaryotic transcription/translation process is different from the prokaryote's) It is truly not difficult to get access to these resources. You more than likely will not be able to get access to a PCR machine, though. As an aside, I've researched a little about the U.S. military scientists, as I considered going in to do research. Supposedly, the military has made it a task to privatize their scientific military research. I'm saying that civilians would be doing the research rather than military. Also, there seems to be a higher demand for people with graduate degrees to do the scientific research rather than undergraduates. My guess is that the privatization is to either distance the U.S. government from the research in case anything goes wrong. And/or it's an attempt to increase work productivity and obtain faster/better results. Maybe consider becoming a CBRN officer?

Psychologists are suppose to suggest ways to solve problems... The ethics involved suggest that psychologists do not deliberately alter people's lives (not without permission, etc..). If there is no problem, at least he thinks there is no problem, then what is the problem? You're problem? Well, if it's not his problem, then there you're wasting your time by acting as an good and ethical scientist.

Part of science is having a reason to expend and obtain resources. For instance, to make a circuit, you might need a light bulb, a power source, and some wire. But without the reasons to obtain certain materials, you won't know which light bulb, power supply, and wire to get. In general, what I'm trying to get at is that before building your own lab, you'll want to be knowledgeable and well read about the activities you plan on conducting in your lab. If you plan on researching something in order to discover something new, then you will need to have been well read on previous literature and have a few theories about how to take previous data and build upon it (this is more like graduate school stuff). Research, in general, occurs after you've become familiar with a good amount of the knowledge and materials of the profession. So, go grab some books, get well read, and determine what kinds of experiments you'd like to conduct. After being well-read on it and deciding what you would like to do, such as make a laser, go get the materials and do such. So, a lot of the equipment you'll be buying is to test theories, unless you're attempting research. That powerlabs guy has been around for a while. I think I noticed the guy around 2003 or 2004. The guy probably has a decent amount of money and what not. I don't know what he does these days, and I'm not sure how he got access to a lot of areas where he could safely do his experiments. I'm reading his bio. Looks like his parents had money (worked at a bank for 10+ years), education, and the ability to direct him toward such. Anyway, I would think your biggest deal would be finding a safe place to do the experiments. You could try your basement or backyard, depending on how big they are. Otherwise, you might want to start talking to some local chemists and physicists (perhaps visit a college/university), and ask if they know any decent, nearby places you could test some equipment. But if you bother approaching these people to test equipment, be very sure about what you are testing, ready to explain your experiment, and explain some aspects of the science behind it... And why you think it's important that you conduct this experiment. Some people don't like their time being wasted. As said, be well read. With my knowledge in biology, I could probably have a mad science lab. However, I believe if I started posting about such details on SFN, I'd see the FBI, CIA, NSA, some other three-letter agency quite soon.

I'd like to see some diagrams, ajb. Who is getting the money? Where is it going in particular? Is it going to the guy who wants to research better plastics or the guy who wants to make a better artificial heart? I mean, sure, people aren't spending as much money of various scientific research. While attempting to better understand human immunology, why fund money towards understanding the immunology of flies when you could simply put money towards understanding the immunology of mice? Then again, if you can develop strong arguments for one or the other, you get the money. And the person who could say, "I can find out more with my flies than his mice and use less money" will more than likely get the money. I really think that a lot of economic changes people have been hoping for will eventually occur. People will fund things related to transhumanism, despite the religiosity of many people in the world. If not transhumanism, then definitely increased abilities in medical science and medical research. Things such as space travel and understanding complex physics will be put on hold. And it seems like we will be coming to a point where we will have more biologists than physicists, as the level of physics required to decently understand biological systems may already be to the level we need to make great leaps and bounds in the future with our limited monetary resources. These are the days of medical science. I will agree with pioneer. We all really need to do a better job of sharing our toys. It seems like people have yet to take up communitarian actions, and that leads to a lot of serious issues. Then again, I like science. I could envision myself as one of those Chinese post-doc researchers that works 16 hours a day on something. Give me some power bars, a little bit of time to stretch and do some quick exercises, and I'm back in the game.

Alright, those are some possibilities. Thank you very much, CharonY. This also works: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene I'm not sure if it is part of Genbank, though. I was not thinking about the transcription->translation-> protein aspect of things; but surely, the function of the protein (if not acquiring the semantic reasoning behind the naming of the gene) is important. Thanks for the input.

I keep coming across a variety of genes (abbrevited for reasons I don't know or otherwise), and I keep wondering what these letters stand for. If I correctly understand, the HesC gene abbreviation stands for "Human embryonic stem cell" gene. That's nice and all, but I'm wondering if any of you know a decent database where I can find maybe more detail about these various three letter, four-letter.. #-letter genes I keep coming across. First and foremost, I'm trying to figure out what these abbreviations mean if there is an abbreviation, and perhaps some historical knowledge about these various genes, such as Blimp1. Anyone know where I can find a database or some databases that discuss these details?

I'm guessing that would be the IUPAC name unless there is a biochemistry standard (not single letters) that I am unaware of. correction: It would seem that the IUPAC name is "alanine." I'll look into this. I'm guessing this: 2-aminopr​opanoic a​cid Seems right. sources: (1) http://www.chemspider.com/RecordView.aspx?rid=16d6aa47-930c-4fb9-90dc-35e024d2cd55 (2) http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/AminoAcid/AA1n2.html#AA1 p.s. Nice way of representing your structure.

So, perhaps by saying "all the cell types of the body" it was implying development post-placenta, so cells of an adult body?

Yes, but there is a difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. The way the mRNA gene binds to the ribosome is different. I am under the assumption that the mitochondria, in this situation, are largely under the influence of prokaryotic evolution. So, would you say that the counterargument is that the gcl gene does have that Kozak sequence? I'm not sure if the gcl gene has been sequenced. But obviously a sequence should have the information describing whether or not the sequence possesses the ability bind to eukaryotic or prokaryotic ribosomes, right? An extreme exception would be that the ribosomes produced by the particular neighboring mitochondria are very different from other mitochondria. I'm just curious about this situation, so it's so close to "home," the beginning stages of development in a multicellular eukaryotic organism. Maybe it was a sign of some missing link between single-cell to multicellular development. And are you saying in this part "...or in fact translation by cytoplasmic mitochondria." that may indeed be translated by mitochondria? p.s. Thanks. Post was changed and edited.

I'm reading about embryonic germ cells from one of my course books. It says that EG cells should be able to turn into any cell. Then again, it seems to say it can turn into the three germ layers. However, from the way I'm interpreting this, it would appear that EG cells are pluripotent and not totipotent. So, I'm unsure as to whether or not consider them totipotent or pluripotent. Perhaps this is really a contextual issue? The attached image has part of my text that I am discussing. Note the term "pluripotent" and the phrase "...all the cell types..."

Well, I got into an argument with a professor who got his Ph.D in Evolution and Ecology about this issue a little. A few months ago, I think. I basically claimed that birds could be an example of the pinnacle of evolution, of which he replied that there is no pinnacle of evolution. I wanted to say in reply, "Well, if sh** gets too complicated, they can just fly away." But I held that part in. Humans can't easily "fly away." Fair enough, but I think you could still look at this from different angles: I could see the following as pinnacles of evolution: 1) Bacteria: Have the ability to reproduce and evolve and have remained on Earth a long time. Then again, in terms of an individual species, they often change or mix and evolve, etc. etc.. 2) Birds: Their cognitive skills and small body exemplify how the body to brain mass ration downsized until a species can remain cognitive, intelligent, and yet keep a bout of survival. It's really their memory and cognitive skills that make me think their brains underwent amazing amounts of evolution. They have impressive memory skills. 3) Humans: Humans are impressive in that they can examine, feel, and discuss the nature of the universe and how they may have come about existence. More importantly, they are the first species to really accomplish this feat and devise technological ways to seek answers to their questions. What makes the birds and humans different is that they have a brain. Furthermore, they have a sense of existence and the natural world around them. They can bend the situation. Birds, unlike apes, can simply fly away if things get too complicated. Perhaps the angle is best described this way: Take a biological structure/function, examine which species has wielded it the best, and attribute the pinnacle of evolution of that attribute to that species. In a lot of ways, when we think of the pinnacle of evolution, there is a concept similar to the Great chain of being, for which there is a path of moving "up."

The Internet has been around for a while. However, I'll advance your idea. I propose that open-source science projects, including biology projects, are some of the best advancements made. Not only that, but how the communities can read each other's stuff and collaborate.

My previous knowledge of genetics is a little foggy, but I remember there being something about one type of ribosome not being able to (EDIT: ribosomes translate; RNA polymerase transcribes) translate the mRNA from another organism. I think it was that prokaryotic ribosomes can't translate eukaryotic mRNA. Or maybe it was the other way around? Either way, I'm reading about the possible transcription of certain genes, such as the germ cell-less (gcl) gene inside of eukaryotic cells during development. It would appear that the hypothesis is that the mitochondrial ribosomes help at translating this gene. How could this be? I suspect the following: 1. Somehow the gcl gene is deeply rooted in prokaryotic genetics 2. the amino acid sequences of the mitochondrial ribosomes are much different that the binding principles are different (how mRNA attaches to the ribosome and goes about translation)

Interesting article I came across while viewing sciencedaily.com a few days ago. I thought the stuff was cool and quite critical. I suspect when I get a chance, I'll be looking into the original articles For now, I suspect some of you who like studying modern biology and various aspects of animal/bug psychology and sociology would find this article an interesting read. As follows, there is a link and a bit from the article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100826141221.htm Genomes of Two Ant Species Sequenced: Clues to Their Extraordinary Social Behavior

Thank you. I'll look into those sources when I have more time. This thread was created with a slight leaning toward the idea of re-creating the white tiger in case it were to go extinct. If we had complete documentation of the proteins involved in development of a certain species, such as the white tiger, how possible would it be to simply synthesize/recreate the cellular materials and then induce that formulated cell to undergo development, thus developing a newborn white tiger? I suspect it would need a mother, but I'm thinking a regular tiger mother might work (despite white tigers being somewhat larger than other tigers).

I should probably know about this, but I do not. I'm reading about the KIT gene and how a dominant mutation causes piebaldism. Does that mean the following: A non-functional allele mutates into a functional (dominant allele). What does the term "dominant mutation" mean?

In general, I think a person would have to quickly figure out how to make a low-cost balance scale... But in reference to the non-helpful necromancer....

Deep homology is a beautiful topic of study. Yes, as I've studied more neuroscience, I've noticed that scientists in the past few decades have remained amazingly ignorant or have neglected studying evolutionary aspects of sleep. Furthermore, many other aspects of brain evolution and phylogenetic relatedness have been ignored. I can understand perhaps ignoring aspects of the brain, because we were not definite (and still aren't of many) about brain cells and their mechanics. But to excuse phylogenetic studies of brain evolution in biochemical and behavioral relatedness seems impractical. Nonetheless, people have attempted to do phylogenetic studies in relation to intelligence, but that's an extreme that is not easily defined nor measured with biochemical tests. Of the ones that come to mind, many were anatomical and simply looked at the macrostructure of the brain, sometimes in relation to body weight. Something I came across in the past year was this: How Alcohol Blunts Ability Of Hamsters To 'Rise And Shine' Perhaps of the best arguments I've come across for sleep is that it helps reduce stimulation of various neurons. Constant stimulation seems to deplete (or perhaps overexcite) the cell of its function, and sleep enables it to regain a sense of stability. Melatonin buildup also plays in by eventually inducing a desire for sleep. Perhaps the mechanisms to induce sleep came about through various evolutionary stages, during which the hand of evolution and fitness eventually guided humans to require about 8 hours of sleep for a decent amount of mental and physical recovery. Maybe some phylogenetic studies of similar animals would reveal how sleep is similar (or even dissimilar) in species, thus revealing HGH patterns and mental capacity patterns in relation to sleep amount. In general, I think a lot will be found through phylogeny and biochemical experiments.

Thanks, CharonY. What you said helped. In the time that has passed, it would seem that this particular thread went from the first link on Google's search engine to about fifth. As such, I think I have a good idea how to study for a practical. Some time has passed, and I got As in both of my lab classes. The genetics lab wasn't so difficult until I forgot the phenotype ratio for a heterogenous dihybrid. Something like that. I couldn't remember if it was 9:3:3:1 or 3:1. Meh, I seemed to have done quite well. I think I put down 9:3:3:1. I believe that's wrong... I didn't have enough time to bust out a punnet square, so it was expected that I had something like that memorized. I did at one point, but that was during the class I took in the spring. I forgot that tidbit of info over the few months I was in summer.... It bothers me.... I think one of the most important things is to constantly review the experiments, the media used, what the media looks like, and any other equipment used in the experiment. Know their purpose in the experiment. On a deeper level, it may later become required to know the chemical processes that are undergone. So, study things from general to specific. It's as if you have to constantly know the details to the purpose of the experiment, methods and materials used, expected results, and the results obtained. Not simply in a theoretical, arabic word sense.. Know what things look like, what color they are, be able to identify them by color and color change (be able to identify and recall what the physical details look like). And that format of studying and reviewing somewhat relates to how a scientific paper is written. However, in contrast, I remember looking at cards of squashed sordaria and determining the map units and number of varying offspring with types of crossovers. That too was a "type" of experiment, albeit a pathetic almost non-scientific experiment. It was more like some kind of baconian observation, but yet it used math. I don't quite know where the scientific method fit into that "experiment." Still, come the practical, I had to know how to do the math involved with looking at a similar sordaria image. That was easy. I would definitely have to say that my microbiology exam differed from my genetics exam. The microbiology practical really focused on the media and some simple supplies. Being able to look at a certain media plates and describe what kind of media they were was important. For instance, there was one plate that was like a Shigella-Salmonella plate that looked like another plate we used throughout the semester. I had to know what plate was on the table in front of me, and to have been able to do that, I would have needed to memorize and recall what kind of plates we used throughout the semester, what kind of growth they enable, what the growths look like on the plates, and be able to discern the properties of one plate from others. The other stuff was silly, such as knowing which wipes were used for slides or the microscope. Other stuff, such as knowing which alcohols were used on slides. There was a "station" that asked me which tools (stabbing needle, loop, or stick) were used for which kind of media. I couldn't remember if KIA (.pdf) could have a loop used on it and/or a needle. So, in general, the best thing to have done for that practical was constantly review all the experiments and documents that were not necessarily experiment related over-and-over until I had recorded and recoded the information and could recall it. But more importantly, I should have been doing that since the first experiment rather than maybe a few weeks before finals. So, I definitely have some bad review skills going on, despite me getting As. Being able to quickly recall that stuff is super-important when in a practical setting, because practical settings are intense. Perhaps closing one's eyes, attempting to recall the details of an experiment and things learned, doing it as quick as possible, opening the eyes, moving to another seat (like musical chairs without someone taking away a chair), and doing it all over again makes a good mock atmosphere. Or just imagine it and be lazy... The genetics exam focused on me being able to know the details of the experiments we did through the semester. It also focused on tidbits of info that a person should have learned and memorized by doing the experiment, such as knowing the typical phenotypic and genotypic ratios of a cross between two heterozygous parents. So, there was detail involved. In general, constant review would have helped me save a lot of time. As a final note, I would have to say that these kind of practical sharply differed from a simple anatomy exam. For instance, an anatomy exam is mostly pure memorization. That's actually simpler than memorizing the majority of details to an experiment in relation to purpose of the experiment, methods and materials, results, and expected results. I feel as though the anatomy exam I had was much simpler. other additional notes: 1. by arabic words, I mean just looking at the textual side of things. Some religions don't believe in using imagery, so they rely on text in beautifully arranged forms in order to represent deeper meanings; still, the person is using text rather than explicit imagery. 2. also, i quickly learned that it helps to actually write the station's question on the form I have if I don't have enough time to evaluate what that station is asking of me. So, when I was determining the phenotype of a cross between to diploid parents with different adenine synthesis pathway genotypes and determining if the offspring would be red or white.. i didn't have time to actually think through it with the limited time... so I just wrote the parental genotypes and when i had some free time at another station, i did the cross and determined the offspring.