CharonY

While kind of true, I will add that China and India are still developing (and per capita, still emit far less) as such, the increase is actually relatively moderate, compared to a fully developed industrial nation. It should also be added that according to the Cicero Center for international climate research a revised model implies only a 2.3% increase for 2018 in China (4.7% was the predicted value). This is still a higher increase over previous years (1.7% 2017) after a decrease between 2014-2016. According to the report the initial reduction was the result of expansion of renewable energies, but those were unable to cover the increased demand after 2016. While the sheer amount of people involved in the process post a significant challenge, it is at least somewhat surprising that they managed to reign things in a bit (all things considered). India has seen a sharper increase, but are emitting even less on a per capita basis. China produces ca. 26% of its energy via renewable resources, whereas in the USA it is only 17%. In India capacity and production were quite a bit lower. That being said, a large part of these investments in renewable energy in China are not necessarily targeted at climate change per, but also much of it is about energy independence. On top, smaller scale renewable energy production is a way for them to create energy in more isolated areas of China, where standard of living (and energy consumption) is still very low. A rise is pretty much inevitable, if China and India plan to increase standard of living, and the question to a large degree is how fast they can expand their renewable energy production capabilities.

Essentially you would first screen spectinomycin (i.e. plasmid carrying) bacteria and confirm insertion via Southern (though a nested PCR would also work). From the looks of it, there is no marker for counter-selection, i.e. you would just have to screen clones, unless I am missing something. The explants can then be selected via their ability to grow with mannose as sole carbon source. Typically you would then confirm the insertion in plants again via PCR (and Southern, if you feel thorough).

IIRC there were basically antibacterial composition (which were also termed preservative-containing solutions) and hydrogen peroxide based solutions, which are sold as one or two-step systems. In the former a catalyst is included which allows faster and controlled degradation of the peroxide. One thing to add regarding contamination is that sterilization can be incomplete in a number of cases. The most common one, I imagine, is the formation of biofilms on lenses, which are quite more resilient to hydrogen peroxide (and other stressors). If kept in saline for long enough, they provide the reservoir for renewed bacterial growth.

It depends essentially on the bacterial load of the juice. If it was (mostly) sterile and you pour out carefully without anything getting in, it will be fine. But if you can smell something, it means that you managed to get bacteria in and they are happily doing their thing. If you drink directly out of the bottle, you obviously contaminated it rather heavily.

So you agree that what you consider to be racism is a modern construct and therefore not the shaping force of human evolution? To re-iterate, it is a social construct and incidentally the Hutu-Tutsi distinction is an interesting example o fit.

it is important to note that the concept of "race" is fairly modern. For the longest part of human history there was no systematic concept of race or species. Groups were in conflict with other, of course but it follows completely different concepts. There were some concepts floated around but pretty much up to the 17th century "race" as a concept was fairly vague and often certain traits were more linked to a variety of things such as upbringing or area where one was born. During the enlightenment the natural world was starting to be classified systematically. Roughly the 18th century race was being used as a separate term as species and closely connected to imperialism, a precursor to our modern variant of racism was formed.

Acidification is generally speaking not that essential. (Over-) use of antacids where the stomach acidity is brought up close to neutral for example do not lead to noticeable changes in digestion itself. The acute effects seem more to be related to bacterial load and colonization. There are long-term effects, which are perhaps not surprising. But it appears that while a stomach and an acidic environment together with pepsins confer selective advantages, they are not fundamentally essential. I am not an expert, so I do not know whether there are specific modifications of the montreme GI, but I vaguely recall that at least on the macro level no specific genetic adaptations were reported to account for the reduced organ (things like dietary adaptations were part of the speculation).

The other major proteases are released in the intestine and work at higher pH (which is another functional reason for the need of neutralization).

No. I meant they sell the instruments, but while its operation is trivial, there are very diverse uses for it. These uses are defined by the chemistry before they get into the cycler. Perhaps to elaborate a bit. The thermocycler basically only does temperature ramps very accurately and very fast. Unless it is also an instrument used for quantitative PCR, in which case they are also able to measure fluorescence at the same time. What you ultimately amplify using the instrument is entirely defined by the primers, polymerase and template DNA, but you will have to get the right reagents for your particular diagnostic question.

Sometimes the issue are seemingly simple things. In many places in NA you have either automatic readers for electricity or at least semi-regular readings. I am not sure how it is in Poland but in Germany I remember that they used to do yearly readings. It was discussed for a while to sell surplus energy from private solar systems, but since there is no real simple mechanism to figure out when and how much surplus was actually sold at a given time it was a bit of an issue. I am not sure how things have evolved from there, considering that solar panels have become more and more attractive over there.

Not sure how that changes anything. Symbiotic relationship or not, it does not really change the taxonomy of the partners involved. I.e. there is still sufficient separation as opposed to, say plastids and mitochondria. With regard to OP under most definitions plants would not be the exclusive group of photosynthetic organisms. One rather obvious question to ask is where did the photosynthetic organelles in plants come from.

A) I recommend you refreshen your knowledge about what PCR is. It is not a sequencing technique, it merely amplifies a select gene region in a targeted way. That alone can be diagnostic if the right primers are selected, for some deeper insights the amplified product can be sequenced. To this end, I highly recommend you get a simple textbook on molecular techniques and read it, or perhaps go to some suppliers for polymerases and read through their manuals. B) Typically Bio-Rad does not sell turnkey systems, just the equipment and training for the instruments. I.e. they do not have a lot of application specialists for all potential applications. While they likely can tell you about the fundamentals of PCR and how to operate the cycler (the latter being rather trivial), but you will likely have to find protocols for your specific application (which basically means finding the right primers, for the most part). You should ask for the types of contamination you are looking for and read literature regarding their detection via PCR for starters.

A few points: 1) Since you are not talking about biology, the thread is going to be moved to philosophy, if you want to expand on that part more. 2) Taking examples from the natural world and try to fit it into a philosophical framework is often not helpful as the theoretical framework and mechanism are often on different levels and do not necessarily support each other. 3) This is especially problematic if you cherry pick examples from the natural world and try to strengthen a philosophical argument with it. Your main question in OP was whether territoriality is mainly a characteristic of predators, and I think that has been answered. I.e. there are plenty of non-predators that are territorial, and conversely quite a few predators are migratory (or at least in part). In addition, even among territorial animals, quite a few exhibit ritualistic competition. I.e. the degree of violence can vary with some non-predators being more violent than some predators. Thus, the biological aspects are fairly complex and I am not sure how much it would help you in a philosophical argument. If you want to explore the biological side for a moment, you are basically talking about falls under the broader aspect of resource use and competition. The development of such behaviour is often investigated under the viewpoint of cost-benefit trade-offs (with regard to fitness), which for example explains why for the most part incumbents retain their territory (unless severely weakened). In that regard you could state that animals generally do not relinquish resources willingly, if they can avoid it. Here again, there are notable exceptions of course, such as in social animals.

I do not think that it makes sense to use such overarching narratives to explain the natural world. Animals are territorial for a variety of reasons (though in the broadest sense it involves resource use). Plenty of non-predatory animals are very aggressive, especially toward their own species, during breeding season, for example. In fact, territoriality is best investigated in birds. It should also be noted that there is an inherent cost of violence, and a lot of territorial animals avoid fatal or serious injuries by limiting violent actions. The reason is that using violence excessively is a bad strategy all around. Even the winner might be too injured to benefit from the territory so that many conflicts are ritualized to various degrees. An exception are hive animals, in which the individual has less at stake. There the fights get really vicious. At the same time, some non-predatory animals exhibit strangely excessive violent behaviour during breeding seasons. I may be misremembering, but I recall that a song bird (maybe robin?) causes a surprising number of deaths due to territorial behaviour. In short, all these types of grand narratives which try to capture nature's complexity in simple narratives are pretty much always lacking in explanatory power and will be contradicted by observations. While they may be compelling, they are generally ultimately wrong.

I think land ownership and territoriality are very different concepts. The first being a rather abstract concept . Territoriality on the other hand is widely distributed through the animal kingdom, and clearly not limited to predators. Think ants or birds, for example.

! Moderator Note I think the thread has run its course as we full full-circled at least a half-dozen times. Closed.

It is very unlikely that you got enough from a high school project to write a proper research paper. The first question that you should ask yourself is not "what did I do" but "what open question did I try to answer?". Also from your description it does not seem that you actually have a protein structure (x-ray crystallography is usually the gold standard for that), but rather just a prediction (I presume the bioinformatic part of it?). There is a huge gap between isolating a protein and having its 3D structure resolved, which you did not really address, So the question there is again, what knowledge have you gained that is not already in current literature? Typically, this is at the start of a project, so perhaps you should read up on literature related to your project and think about the purpose of the project and how you want to use it to answer a research question. In that regard you will normally want to have guidance from the program advisors to put you on the right track. I will note that it is generally unlikely that a highschool project will have enough meat for a full publication.

That has been done quite a bit, even around or slightly before the wave of NGS (which is funny as they are around for so long and are still called that). In 2006 work started on the Canceer Genome Atlas, which has documented millions of cancer-related mutations. And it really has not given us a wealth of new therapeutic targets. As mapping mutations is at best a first step. Many of the most interesting targets were already known for some time, and there is a glut of them in regulatory areas which can complicate simple functional analyses. So that is not the new great hope . What has created a bit of a buzz is the attempt to do personalized analytics, i.e. to use it in a diagnostic context to match therapies (under the umbrella of precision medicine). But in the end, only a tiny fraction has resulted in beneficial results.

I think it is simply because of a) time and b) location. A few decades ago religiosity was considered the norm in most Western countries (and even now it is still about 50% or quite higher, depending on country). While my family was not particularly religious, in German elementary school I had only two choices, protestant or catholic. So by chance most folks are likely to grow up at least somewhat religious and then shed it when they became older and not simply embedded in a somewhat religious system.

Depends on whether OP means sole diet or not. If so, the answer is pretty straightforward and has been answered. Perhaps more interestingly, East African jumping spiders indirectly feed on blood, by preferentially preying on female mosquitos who have just fed. The vampire finch is also an interesting example of diet evolution, though blood is not their sole source of nourishment.

I am decidedly unexcited of yet another antimicrobial compound, unless there is a clear path to treatment development (especially as tox screens were only conducted on cell culture and moths). Having candidate is the low barrier and few get to the point to be even seen worthwhile to be enter a clinical trial (and from there not all survive, either).

The issues under discussion are two-fold, publication of low quality papers passing peer-review and publications of sufficient quality not passing. Both have different reasons and require different mechanism. I would argue that the latter is generally not fundamental issue, if one is rejected by one journal, one simply chooses another one. At least in my area there are so many choices that it usually gets out somewhere. I will say that in high-stakes journals (e.g. Nature and Science) things are a bit different and there is a lot of struggle involved. I am not entirely sure I like the process surrounding those high-prestige publications. There are a number of journals and publishers (MDPI, BMC and some others I cannot recall off the top of my head). BMC also offers double-blind for some. With regard to the weaknesses of the single-blind and open review it generally is known (and I am pretty sure that there is data for it somewhere.. I think I saw something recently in PNAS) that famous authors may benefit from it. But this is pretty much an open secret and double-blind would address that to some degree, but not in all fields (as it is often trivial to identify the big shots). I got rejected from an IEEE journal once but do not recall significant issue aside from nitpicking that I found unnecessary to address (the work to outcome ratio was way off) so I moved to a related journal with higher impact factor and got in there. Some fights are just not worth fighing. My experience is quite the reverse. In Europe I found that if a big shots states something it is excruciatingly difficult to counter it. I had far easier time with US editors. While feuds are a known thing everywhere, I found in the US much easier to navigate them. In Europe it is much more... vicious.

I doubt that it is about control per se. Folks are alright is only presented on of those options, for example (i.e. when they have no control whatsoever). Moreover, when presented separately folks were fine with either choice in such a randomized trial. I suspect that it is the thought of getting something worse than someone else is something that is at least one of the reasons. In various psychological (and economic) tests (such as the ultimatum game, where on person decides the share of a given monetary amount and the second either rejects or accepts the deal) folks have been shown that folks would rather penalize unfair shares rather than accepting any amount of money (which would be the rational choice). Some similar thinking may play a role here. The corollary is that theoretically people may have less misgivings if they were specifically recruited to either group separately. However, that would make blind trials and accounting for placebo impossible as well as raise the issue of non-randomized selection. Edit: A bit off-topic though it may be a similar mechanism: It is interesting to speculate what other impact these things have in other personal and political decision making. As recent studies have shown, economic loss is, for example, surprisingly not a strong predictor for radicalization (and goes against traditional wisdom, which assumes a rational decision-process). Instead, fear of unfair treatment and status loss or that someone could take ones share, are stronger motivators. I.e. the perception of potential loss seems to be stronger than the actual loss, which is somewhat mind-blowing bit also implies that many standard political assumptions are wrong.

Folks do not publish to a database, but to journals or books. Databases collect entries from those respective publishing options. There may be problems if they publish in somewhat more obscure or long discontinued journals, or if they have a very common name. In the latter case, it may help use additional info, such as research areas and affiliation. It has gained momentum as everyone is pressured to use one or several of these things (and they are more) as a means for self and institutional promotion. I think it comes more natural to the younger folks, others update less regularly (say, around grant seasons...).

There is a large body of literature for a variety of cellular aspects. You may want to check out books on Biochemcial Systems Theory. Often , the nonlinear aspects are captured suffciently using ordinary differential equations or at least approximated with power-law relationships. There are also non-dynamic approaches, of which constraint-based ones are particularly popular. If you want to find a particular one, I suggest to look into carbon metabolism and especially glycolysis, for which many models have been established (predominantly for model organisms such as yeast and E. coli).