Genecks

Supposedly there are terms that relate to how drugs work and the emphasis of their effectiveness when mixed with something else. So, let's say I take one drug and another: these cause the effects to be twice as strong. (additive effect, right?) And let's say I take drug y and drug x: drug x causes the effect to triple: multiplicative effect, right? I think there are terms for these effects, but I think I have the terms wrong. I cannot really remember what the terms are, but I use to know.

I would suggest seeing a dietician and an immunologist. Perhaps it's a virus that is affecting you. I had some weird issues (still occurring but less severe at the moment) a few months ago (not solved at all). I think the best thing is to do is keep visiting the doctors and different doctors at that. And another suggestion is to perhaps try being in different environments: does your environment have smog? do you think your environment has mold? is it low in oxygen?

I'm reading that it is possible for prokaryotes to have cholesterol, but I have yet to find anything that discusses which species are able to have it. Here is something I have read from a website: - site: http://lipidlibrary.aocs.org/Lipids/cholest/index.htm So, which species and conditions would those be? Anyone know?

Yeah, I was going to say it was a moth from its physical structures, such as the fuzziness. I've played with moths enough times in my life that I consider them household pets not pests. I think it was the back and antennae that gave me the impression it was a moth.

Does TFIIH not play a major role in the releasal of RNA polymerase II to conduct transcription? Because I'm reading a book that's saying this: Is this article contradicting that information? Title: Phosphorylation of the RNA polymerase II C-terminal domain by TFIIH kinase is not essential for transcription of Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome <Published online before print August 7, 2009> - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/06/0903642106.abstract 1. Sun Woo Honga,b, 2. Seong Min Honga, 3. Jae Wook Yooa,b, 4. Young Chul Leec, 5. Soyoun Kimd, 6. John T. Lise and 7. Dong-ki Leea,b,1

Nice. That big bright ball in the sky is going to be belittling us beings for at least a billion+ years, so we might as well harness it's energy. This article has a nice Tesla feel to it. I think, however, anything that makes resources readily available for all can either bring society to a great age where we can all eat, have children, and prosper. Or else the rich will deny the support of such technology, and find ways to oppress individuals by denying such progress. Hence why Tesla was a genius... He could get funding...

Bill, if you would like to write up a nice article and throw it in the engineering section (or perhaps keep us up-to-date with recent technology news by throwing it in the news section), I'd be interested in reading. I had the opportunity to sit in one of those hybrid cars with a math professor a year and a half ago. It was awesome. The technology was really tuned to helping the driver save fuel and other resources. That was the first (and has been the only) time I've sat inside a hybrid car. My father worked for Chrysler over 30+ years. But I've never really learned too much about cars.

I once talked to an English teacher about "reading speed." Him and I both felt that we like to take our time with reading. This means we don't try to rush and read 14 pages an hour. I attempt to understand and comprehend what I am reading. Personally, I've been able to move my reading speed from about 5 pages an hour to about 7 to 8 pages an hour in the past year. I think that's good progress. However, I'm thinking that it's still considerably slow. I'm mostly reading either chemistry books or biology books these days. I think a lot of my reading speed has to do with whether or not I'm familiar with the material. Sometimes it has to do with me losing visual focus, and my eyes trail off the line of text to somewhere else. I'm not sure if that's a lack of attention span or else just part of having vision problems. So, I find that if I am not progressing, I'll take a nice pencil and trail along the lines of text until I get done with the page(s) I need to read. What do all of you think of reading speed? Does it increase throughout the college years? Through the graduate school years? Post-doc? This semester is the first semester I've been given books that were around 700 pages each (I'm an undergrad). Last semester, I had about 500 pages per class. That wasn't so bad. Obviously, the reading is a lot more this semester, but I feel I can keep up with it. Still, the increased amount of reading makes me wonder if I'm being slow and perhaps I'm not reading and comprehending as fast as I should. I find that a steady pace keeps me on task, but I can't help but wonder I'm doing something wrong. Any input would be appreciated.

I wonder if I can chew on it or perhaps eat it. I wonder about those kinds of things.

Maybe a problem with the BIOS. Maybe skin breakdown from not moving around during sleep.

To excite an action potential and to inhibit an action potential. I think.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inhibitory_postsynaptic_potential http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitatory_postsynaptic_potential http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inhibitory_postsynaptic_potential#Inhibitory_Molecules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitatory_postsynaptic_potential#Excitatory_molecules

I'm trying to decide ways prions came into the natural world. If an organism with the proteins that prions destroys are present, then the organism would surely die or not be able to live too long when born. Therefore, I came under the consideration that the organism that produced prions does not have a brain. Prions, from what I consider, somehow found their way into the foodweb by chance. A small chance that is, unless it can be found to occur in a living organism without deterring the organism's fitness.

My Premise: If the prions were a naturally occurring protein inside of a conscious, living organism, then it would have undergone rapid deterioration during developmental growth: It would have died at a young age.

Alright, thanks.

I've the answer understood, but I don't understand why the word "immunological" is being used. Does this have to do with antibody bonding, which would allow usage of the term "immunological"? If so, doesn't that seem biased, because other binding agents could be used? My answer: possible amino acid change in the enzyme; however, the enzymes are similar enough that the binding agent binds to the enzyme in question during the western blot.

I think the fact that water is liquid is a good sign of showing improbability within the universe. If it the water were in space, it's be frozen. However, there had to be a sun and heat for that stuff to stay as a liquid. Water is not only a vital substance for living, but it is a vital substance to show that life is possible and can occur. Water allows various chains of molecules to be cut, which is one reason it is important in biological systems. It also acts as a system to transport molecules. If it were ice, nothing would really get transported. I'm not sure where you are getting this methane idea from, mooeypoo. It sounds like a bunch of methyl radicals would be dangerous to a biological organism.

How do you think prions came about in the natural world? I have considered as of late that it was an odd mutation created by a plant in order to defend itself against herbivores.

Nevermind. Please delete the thread.

avatar change?

Here is something else that's quite dated that you might be interested in: Combined with other technologies, stem cell technology, routing things to the right places, and more knowledge about cellular biology and immunology, I think we'll have this HIV issue figured out this century.

Were the various strains of algae that were maintained from the Aquatic Species Program ever processed, documented, and made public? Also, who shut down the program? Here is what I've found so far. Does anyone know if there is a database with more strains? A Look Back at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Aquatic Species Program: Biodiesel from Algae Prepared by: the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Operated by Midwest Research Institute Under Contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093

I don't think any biological curriculum for an undergraduate adequately covers enough courses to really help one with his/her field of interest. In general, I'd say a synthesis of physics, biology, and chemistry will help one go far. However, the biochemistry route is dull (hit-your-head-on-the-desk dull). That's why I didn't take it. I'm the kind of person who rather study things in his own time. And the general curriculum for an undergraduate biology major tends to focus on only so many biology courses, and then you'll get more specialized in graduate school. In general, you'll have to wait until grad school. Also, I would like to mention that I don't care for elective courses. I never have. I am a strong advocate of technical training. About the last thing I did with my art history class knowledge was loiter in another art history class offered by the university. I was there with my laptop open, reading about cellular biology. And I think I annoyed the professor a great amount this way. However, I made a nice comment about Donatello's "David" and how even a boy can act like a man, and she left me alone. lol. Cutest art professor I've ever seen, though. I did something similar in this "Community Psychology" class I was in, as I loitered in it, too, reading about cellular biology. I made nice comments about determinism and community and the individual. Pfft. Electives are junk and a way for universities to steal money. If I could have gotten a bachelors for a similar price and take a lot more focused science courses overseas somewhere (and knew where and how), I would have done it. If you can find one, I suggest you do that. I don't care if a person took an art history course and loves Dadaism and YTMND. I don't care. It's not relevant. I feel the electives have made me a better sophist.

I thought other tests were used for viruses, but let's say were looking at viruses and various proteins involved in relation to western blots. We could discuss proteins that are part of the virus. In that sense, we would use a labeled binding agent (antibody, perhaps) and apply it to the gel sample to see if the protein that's part of that virus is there. Such a process could be done to see if a virus is present. Furthermore, a test could be done to see if an antibody is present. Many antibodies attack viruses. Thus, a person would run the sample (possibly containing the antibody) through the gel, and he/she would attempt to attach a binding agent to an antibody. If attachment occurs, then this kind of information could tell you that a person indeed is making antibodies to fight off a virus. Of this post, example one could tell you that a virus is present. In example two, it could tell you that antibodies are being made against a virus.

Are you saying a person can't engineer a bacteria to live on Mars? I think we need to start an exogenesis project. That's right. We need to find a way to send a spacecraft FAR out into space, plant some microorganisms that can eventually evolve to sustain life (machine dispersed every 100 million years if necessary), and make those people question how they came into existence. Yeah, that sounds about right. We'll have some neighbors. In a sense, I think exogenesis is plausible. If we can do it, then someone else could have done it.

Western blots are used to determine if a protein exists within a biological specimen. or vial, or solution, or something... Western blots use an agent to bind to the protein of interest; if the protein of interest exists, then the binding agent will attach to it. So, imagine having different proteins run through the gel. Then, you apply an radioactive labeled antibody to the gel. If bindings occur, you'll be able to see strands on X-ray paper. Otherwise, no attachments mean no bands. Lock and key is a pathetic way to say "molecular bonding." There is a large specificity for certain molecules to bind to other certain molecules. This might have to do with the charges or shapes of the molecules. But in another sense, most molecules (well, the wobble hypothesis is different) have a lock-and-key fit: only one molecule can bind to another particular molecule. I suggest taking some time to read the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_blot Read it and re-read it. Click on the various blue links in order to know the terms involved. It will take a little time to understand what is all involved. p.s. I think you can use the western blot to detect an antibody. I'm not sure if it's the same routine, though. In general, when someone is talking about using a test to detect proteins, then usually you should be thinking "Western blot."