Stefan-CoA

Hey there The best way to figure this out is to look at the blurb on the back of a book. Don't trust all the fancy things written on front like "Best Book Ever - New York Times" as these are mostly bullcrap. Then it depends on what you are actually looking for. Fiction/sci-fi/fantasy - What I found usually helps is you read about two pages from the front, a few in the middle and then one or two in the back (not the end) just to give you a feel of the author's style and progression as well as a hint of the story. This is why real bookstores are better than internet-based ones. IMHO. Biographies - Well, it's mostly about if you find the person interesting, read a wiki page on them first if you don't know them. Science - It's a tough one, I recommend the approach that I used with fiction, but also look at publication date, and if possible research the author a bit before buying to see what people generally have to say about him as a scientist (i.e. Marc Hauser scandal). Try to pick, if there are several books on the topic, the author you feel most comfortable with reading, as a lot of authors tend to rehash the same old story over and over again (as with evolution). Hope this helps

What you are thinking of is what's best described as "radical damage". All those free radicals you keep hearing about on TV? Yeah that's pretty much it. Basically what it is, is a atom (usually oxygen, although others do exist) that carries only one electron, this is a highly reactive species and will pretty much break into whatever structure it comes into contact with. Sometimes this causes cancer, other times it gets sequestered by the necessary enzymes/co-factors. Rarely though will you find just a stray radical oxygen atom, it's usually (I think) in a carbon structure, like the acyl radical. As for certain single atoms doing the damage, I don't think so. Cells move atoms (Chlorine, Sodium, Potassium) in and out of the cell at the rate of several hundred or more per second, if cancer could be induced by atoms bumping against things we'd have serious trouble. Maybe you were thinking of radiation? High energy radiation (mostly gamma and high doses of x-ray - UV radiation too) push out enough energy to physically mutate DNA and the cellular structure, destroying things like p53 proteins, and all those other things that keep the cell replicating normally. I should add at this point that cancerous cells are so-called "immortal" cells because the mechanisms for inducing apoptosis are defunct in some way. Meaning that these cells reproduce till kingdom come, and don't die either. Which is why you need highly toxic treatments (stuff that basically kills cells - this is why chemo and radio therapies are dangerous) to kill the cancer. As for the vibration theory, I'm not quite sure I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think that's a plausible idea. If vibrations were to be able to induce cancer, we'd not have invented things like rollercoasters or off-road vehicles, or even those funny vibrating thingies people stand on to get thinner. Maybe you're speaking of a different type of vibration though? I dunno, some quantum mechanics maybe? I know there's a group in the US that want to characterise the quantum processes behind cancer. Maybe they know of something. Ultimately though, I think your case can best be explained by radiation. @tya: Cancer itself is not hereditary, you can inherit genes giving you a higher chance of getting cancer though (I think you mentioned this) like the BRCA group of genes for example. But there are a myriad of epigenetic factors (and environmental) that are necessary to induce cancer. With specific mutations one might just need a lower dose for cells to become tumorigenic.

Actually, recent evidence suggests that there are already several micro-evolutionary events underway in humans. I'm not saying that we will end up as fish-people any time soon, but we haven't stopped evolving. Neither are we on the brink of extinction. And there isn't such a thing as being evolutionary better than something else, fair enough we are better at abstract thoughts than a shark, but a shark can live under water a whole deal better than we can. Currently we are just better adapted to technology than the rest of the natural world, although they are getting there I think.

What about using induction? You have a smooth barrel, with coiled wire around it and inside you have a magnet. On either side of this barrel you have stronger magnets with opposite poles that could "bounce" the "floating" magnet back and forth? It probly won't work, but when I thought of this in 1st year physics I felt really smart.

Well, a broken heart is a situation of extreme stress. So you've got all the stress hormones pumping through your system (glucocorticoids specifically) which suppress the immune system, increase heart-rate and blood pressure (decrease appetite, I think) and basically activate all the mechanisms one would need for a "flight or fight" response, except this condition is spread over a much longer time. I can only assume that this would lead to detrimental effects on the body as a whole. Also there is the concept of "wille zum leben". If you lose that, the drive to live, one could speculate on psychosomatic effects of wishing/wanting to be dead. I'm barely out of undergrad though, so take what I say with a pinch of salt

I'm no physicist, nor even a "proper" scientist just yet, so all I can do is speculate. But photosynthetic life wasn't the first to have evolved. They built upon mechanisms "discovered" by methanogens, sulphur oxidisers, extremophiles etc (I hope I'm getting my facts right). So, I'm thinking that if Earth were covered in a cloud that would prevent any form of light from entering, you'd still have these little guys going about their business. Since DNA isn't perfectly replicating, you'd always get mutations happening, the by-products would lead to (after a long while I'm sure) an increase in certain environmental compounds (Be it oxygen, Hydrogen, water or whatnot). So after a while, they'd have to adapt. I'm fairly certain that without light, higher life would still have evolved, except it'd be considerably different to what we're used to. Although bacteria could possibly have started using the IR or UV spectrum, which is almost light (as we know it). Come to think of it, maybe instead of "light" one could say "radiation"?

Thanks But we managed to figure it out. For interest's sake; it involved an FAD-peroxo intermediate as well as mono-oxygenation and resonance about the benzene ring

At the risk of being shot down... (I have not had the time to read the posts just yet, but I'd like to pop in my 5 cents) I've read that the brains of homosexual men more closely resemble those of heterosexual women and the same goes for homosexual women having similar brains to heterosexual men. (There are differences between the genders when it comes to the brain - grey/white matter ratio and differences in size amongst the hemispheres as well as aptitudes at certain tasks). Now fair enough the brain is relatively malleable, but I think only at a functional level, not necessarily at a structural level. So, I'm thinking, there have to be several genes encoding for these differences, possibly developmental ones that are active during gestation and possible post-partuition for at least a short while. I'm not saying the environment has nothing to do with it, it is as with everything a strong - possibly over-riding factor, yet I'm fairly certain there has to be a genetic basis for homosexuality. A lot of this is in the realm of speculation though (although I think in the late 90s some tentative evidence was procured), since sexuality itself is such a mysterious phenomenon as is. <div><br></div><div>EDIT: There's also this recent study published in Nature <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09822.html">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09822.html</a> although I must stress that sexual behaviour in humans is most likely NOT as simple as in Mice</div>

Hullo everybody Way down south in South Africa is where I'm from, currently busy with my first post-grad degree (4th year) in Biochemistry. I have an intense (to the chagrin of my non-scientific peers) passion for all things science, even if the ability struggles to do justice to this passion. I hope to someday be a meaningful contributor to this forum and the scientific community as a whole. Regards S

Hi We were also recommended Voet & Voet but it's just horrible and makes some assertions that aren't corroborated by literature. I can recommend, Principles of Biochemistry by Horton et al Or Biochemistry by Mathews, Van Horne and Ahern, both of these helped immensely in my final year. But Lodish is probably one of the best you can get, it's more rounded than the others.

Hi all I'm stuck with a question concerning the conversion of p-nitrophenol to hydroquinone and nitrite. It's an enzyme catalysed reaction that uses an O2 equivalent and 2 NADH equivalents. I need to determine which co-factor is involved as well as the exact mechanism of action. I got as far as determining FAD/FMN as the co-factor (I hope), but beyond that I'm stumped. A gentle hint would make me a very happy boy. Thanks in advance S