CharonY

Yet prokaryotes are far more metabolically diverse. It is probably more that multicelluarity allowed the opening of different niches.

Not necessarily, much is also getting into different niches and exploiting them. Otherwise, prokaryotes would be outcompeting eukaryotes as they former are far more genomically streamlined while being metabolically more diverse. At the same time strategies that are optimized for one condition can fail catastrophically once conditions change. Often, super-optimized populations are vulnerable to perturbations.

If your project can be conducted using animal or in vitro models, the question boils down to a) how complex the proposed experiments are and b) whether you are going to pay for it. If it involves fairly standard analyses there may beUniversity groups (typically core facilities) and a number of commercial labs who can do that, though it may cost quite a bit. If it requires the development of experimental approaches (something that my lab has quite some experience in) the cost skyrockets (mostly personnel costs). If you actually have that level of money, it makes most sense to do as Arete has mentioned: solicit applications. What you basically put up is a rough description of the work you want to do, including e.g. whether you need cell lines or animal models, which level of analysis you need (e.g. what type of analytes are to be measured, targeted or global measure, etc.) as well as budget, while omitting proprietary information. Most universities have a research office where you can send out this level of information and they distribute it to researchers. Folks like me then can look at it and figure out whether we got the capacity to do it. Note that if it involves an NDA the money has to offset the fact that we cannot publish to some degree. If you cannot pay for all that, the interest will be very low at best. The best case scenario here is that you have an idea that is good and detailed enough so that a lab will invest some money for preliminary results. These can could then be used to submit a full application based on these to some granting agency. However, it is extremely unlikely to find someone to go through that trouble without a significant level of evidence that it may actually be successful. Moreover, if the work is not actually funded by you, the IP will usually have to be shared.

Note that the ethics committee does not guarantee any legal rights. It is there only for procedural purposes and it is an entity of the institution. I.e. an ethics committee of an university will not review projects from externals, unless there is an internal collaborator. Its presence is only there that if there is an investigation the institute can claim that they followed procedure and that a given project was reviewed. If something goes wrong people involved can still be punished if they did not follow all reasonable precautions, for example. But also even red flags were missed. But again, the requirement to infect humans pretty much renders all discussion moot.

If your experiments includes infecting humans I can tell you that you can pretty much forget that. Even someone with actual expertise in the area would have a very, very hard time to have anything on that level approved. Also note that on the cellular level mammalian cells (including humans) are very much alike. So if your basic idea does not work with any animals, it is very unlikely to work in humans. Also, if your proposed interaction happens on the cell level, one would expect to be able to measure some effects in specific cell lines. I sense a huge knowledge gap when it comes to working with infection models, and I would spend some serious time addressing that before even thinking about infecting anything.

Ignoring the necromancy: There are a number of competing hypotheses but a coherent view has not emerged as of yet (to my knowledge). But rather obviously our chemical makeup (which similar in all known life forms) tells us a lot about potential venues. That being said, AFAIK (and it is not my field) most of the work is focused on specific aspects (biological activity of simple organic and inorganic molecules, for example) that could help delimiting what may be the progenitor molecule(s) responsible for early life. It will take a while until the obtained data coalesces into a more unified view of things.

In addition, prosecution will be conducted (or more likely conducted) than in other cases, in which reckless behaviour may or may not be involved. That is what the thread was going on about since ca. page 2. I.e. in statistics in Canada, UK and US show ~2-3 times higher persecution rate of assault vs sexual assault (again, not conviction) and some detailed studies showed that that at least part of it can be traced back to morality judgement of the victim by law enforcement. That being said, in some areas law enforcement have acted on these studies and are trying to implement means to mitigate these biases. Future studies will show whether they are effective or not. In other words, talking about risk mitigation in itself may be fine, but it is not an equivalent issue considering that a) victim behaviour disproportionately affect prosecution rates compared to similar crimes (and this does include e.g. intoxication, promiscuity but also age), b) may not be effective in most situation other than general awareness that applies to all situations and c) it may disproportionately affect conviction rates (though there are other factors negatively affecting it). It is one of the situations where the argument is made that these are two sides of a coin, whereas in truth one argument is at best tangential and at worst actual part of the problem (i.e. when it affects prosecution and/or conviction rates disproportionately). Perhaps a good way to think about it is that this thread is about sexual assault actually having happened, because if it doesn't (either due to absence of perpetrator or to some successful mitigation strategies, whether it being not being alone or carrying an anti-rapist stone) the discussion of consequences becomes rather moot. And once it has happened the mitigation strategies or lack thereof, should not be part of the further legal procedure (and again, there are no good objective ways with which one can protect oneself reliably other than avoiding encounters with potential perpetrators). I will also say that the original OP was on a different topic entirely and tried to make the case that sexual assault cases are actually women using their bodies to exchange for favour and power. Thus, the whole discussion was from the onset framed in a way that suggests that sexual harassment and potentially assault are something that the victims were willingly part of (which would violate the very definition of the terms, obviously). If one wants to discuss what risk mitigation techniques are there and their efficacy and implementation (or lack thereof) it is better done in a different context if one really wants to avoid the notion that it is only being discussed in order to shift blame. As I mentioned (repeatedly), context matters. It is also interesting to note that earlier studies on sexual violence have much focused on victim characteristics as risk factors. But for the most part they were not terribly predictive and most factors are not behavior based, except drug abuse. Other factors including being sexually abused as child or being young are not typically factors that can be controlled. Protective functions, at least on the high level, tend to on community and societal level, rather than on the individual ones (and again, most perpetrators are known to the victim) On the other hand many factors are known that are associated with perpetration of sexual violence, including empathic deficits, hyper-masculinity, but also drug abuse. However, as mentioned many many times, it does seem odd that the focus again in this thread is all about the behavior of the victim, rather than that of the perpetrator. To me, that would be the true two sides of a coin issue.

Perhaps I was unclear. What I have not seen are studies showing whether black suicide rates are lower because they are less distressed by bad economic or other situations. I have outlined in the OP why specifically males are more affected than females and in the latter ones offered the speculation why black people may be less distressed even under worse conditions. There is no single catch-all element that will explain the whole thing but there are certain trends that have been investigated, including socioeconomic status, drug abuse, health etc. Some are starting to look at more difficult to measure elements such as perceived status (as mentioned above). But contrary to some assertions above socioeconomic status is relevant. However, it its impact is felt different across a) gender and b) racial lines. Both aspects have been subject to further studies, (including in the one in OP) but not necessarily in relation to suicide. However, if we now want to switch to race-related suicide, In black communities suicide is concentrated more in younger folks and in children has surpassed white suicide rates. Since that has been a recent trend I am not sure how much one can find in literature regarding potential causes. But what it indicates is that, as mentioned above, risk factors vary with the population under investigation.

There is usually no reason to have large amounts of agar in your final template. What is normally done is you pick up as much cells as needed from the plates (glass rod, pipettor, loops etc.) and resuspend the cells in a buffer. Depending on required purity either just lyse them and use the raw lysate or purify them with conventional protocols.

Extrapolating from small subpopulations (e.g. teachers vs cooks; black people in New Orleans vs San Francisco) is usually not helpful in understanding general trends, unless these populations are highly representative of something you are looking at. I just realized, perhaps you are confused by the fact that Federal Reserve Bank of SF published the paper. The authors used national data, not local. Some other info: the observed socioeconomic link is not found in black communities. I.e. in white populations the lower income levels suffer higher rates of suicide, whereas no difference was found in black communities. Note that the income in the lower brackets in black communities were roughly half that of the same bracket in white communities (I believe depending on study somewhere between 10-17k for black populations and 20-35k in white). In addition, the age structure is different between black and white, where in black communties suicide rate is higher in younger folks whereas it is increasingly higher in white middle-aged people. From these observation the hypothesis was formed that either not reaching an aspired socioeconomic status, or perhaps more importantly, loss of socioeconomic status increases suicide risk in white males. Since many black populations are located on the lower respective end of the income curve their disappointment is more directed at lack of perspective rather than not meeting aspirations. I am not sure whether someone thought of a good way to study that, though.

Context matters, MigL. If the discussion was how women could protect themselves, talking about measures could have been relevant. Although, as far as I can tell, there is no good info out there that could actually prove that women's behaviour (say wearing a revealing clothing vs burqa) has any measurable effects of rape or assault frequency (especially noting that most rapes are happening by acquaintances etc.) While the topic changes a few times, the call for behavior modulation was associated with posts that indicated that the decision for prosecution itself was influenced by the perception of the woman and their moral status rather than the evidence of the actual assault. As some have conceded, even crimes that happened that may have been due to neglect (e.g. flashing money) should be fully prosecuted. Yet in case of sexual assault it seems not to be the case. I.e. we are not talking about these things in a vacuum, it is specifically that both, the societal as well as the legal system seems to put a part of the onus of the crime on the victim. I.e. a victim that does not conform to morality perceptions effectively enjoys less justice from law enforcement. I.e. saying that maybe victims should conform to certain social and moral norms (which, again, are wildly arbitrary) does indeed have actual consequences and while it may be perceived as a common sense thing, it does have unintended consequence on how it is perceived by the prosecution. Or put it differently. In a society where these norms do not play a role one would expect that sexual assault would be investigated in a similar frequency as comparable crimes. However, if prosecution thinks that the jury will take these moral evaluations into account, the number will drop. And this is what some of the earlier referenced studies have shown.

Within the US? If you are really interested, I could generate a map or a table from CDC data if you know what you want to look for. I am not sure whether there is a finer grained study available though. Note that the differences are mitigated somewhat as they also looked at the relative income differences. I.e. even with a high income, if one lives in an even higher income county the suicide risk is higher as with someone with a lower income, but living in a lower income county. Though at the lower end it still gets disproportionately higher. Seemingly paradoxically it therefore seems that in somewhat wealthier neighborhoods the suicide rates are higher, but it mostly actually affects the low income group within that community. To some degree this might explain the lower overall suicide rate in black communties, much of the population has been historically segmented into specific communities (which in part are the effects of e.g. redlining).

Sorry lost track of the thread. I did not mean to ignore your request. Regarding perceived socioeconomic status: Quite a few studies were done in Korean populations as they have a very high suicide rate and have, for example, explored the connection between perceived socioeconomic position and suicide attempts and ideation. Recent studies include Ko, Lee and Kim (2014, J Korean Med Sci); Kim, Park and Yoo (2015, Arch Gerontol Geriartr). Note that suicide rate as viewed by job is not an ideal measure as it extrapolates from a pool. To analyze correlations one really has to go to the raw numbers. Here, studies from various countries (and more indirectly, WHO aggregate data). For US specifically I found the paper from the Federal reserve bank of San Francisco one of the more detailed analyses (referenced in the post above). Some of the key findings: - The income distribution of the suicide population is roughly similar distributed as the general population, with a bit of a left shift (i.e. the suicide rate is slightly higher in the below-average income group. The peak of the average population distribution is at ~40k, the peak for the suicide population and about 35k (in 1990 dollars). -Overall there is moderate correlation for for higher income with lower suicide risk (10% higher income is associated with 0.87% lower suicide risk). -When looking at income groups, individuals with less than 20k income are significantly more likely to commit suicide than those with above 60k (and 20k-60k see no significant different to above 60k). Looking hazard rations, an individual with a family income less than 10k is 50% more likely to commit sucide than an individual with an income above 60k. The change with income in non-linearly, though. - However at any given income, being in a county that has a higher average income increases suicide risk. This is a finding that follows a similar theme found in the Korean study (and which I referred to above as relative income). I.e. persons with a lower average income than the county they live in, have a higher suicide risk (with apparently a broader effect on the bottom of the distribution). Race (and gender) is an independent factor from income indicating different social structures that affect suicide risk in the respective groups.

If you ask should it be an impediment to candidacy I would say yes. However, if the question is will it be, I am far less sure about, considering the wacky nonsense perpetuated not only by Trump but also by quite a number of politicians ranging from misconceptions to outrageous claims in areas involving climate and medicine, for example. One big issue for an actual candidate is also the extent of their political network. As seen in the Trump administration he hired quite a few businessmen with no or little relevant experience and/or folks that pledged loyalty to him. regardless of expertise. An actual politician may have a larger network to draw people with actual administrative experience or at least have a more balanced pool.

If it is only different but not inferior, then what was the relevance? You have been stressing that it is entirely different and it is a fair assumption that there some kind of reasoning that makes that information relevant. I simply cannot tell what it is. You have brought up workers. Do you mean that an the workforce in an industry is somewhat relevant to the discussion? If so, how? To be clear, I fail to see why you think that the difference in business structure actually adds to the discussion and it really was only kicked off because you started off mentioning that she was an actress rather than a business owner. If the overall conclusion is that both are unsuitable, which seems to be an emergent consensus, it does not seem to be relevant, either.

I think educating girls is a good idea, however at same time it should also be the case for guys. Both need to understand the concept of consent, and where the (potential) fuzzy borders of sexual harassment/assault, consent etc. are. Focusing exclusively one side seems to put the onus exclusively on the victims (which does include boys who may be victimized). Of course education may not stop a psychopathic rapist. However, that would be the extreme rare case. Most are in borderline situations (e.g. both parties being intoxicated) and having awareness of these concepts does seem to mitigate the issues in some areas.

Explain to me how running a successful entertainment business is less of an accomplishment than e.g. selling a brand and speculating with real estate?

Two thoughts. First she is a businesswoman and based on her upbringing I am more inclined to believe that she may be used to hard work (esp. considering the reports floating around how little time Trump actually spends in the office). Considering the considerable challenges she likely faced it does speak to some degree to her business acumen. However, there is no indication that this can in any way be translated into politics. In fact, the current administration is clearly an indicator that simply trying to run a government like a business does not work well. That being said, it would shift the presidential election to a live reality TV show (more so than it already is) which is somewhat worrisome. It would not be the first time that TV personalities held office but I consider it a poor decision nonetheless. I think the point you are missing and what people try to tell you, perhaps not explicitly enough is that Winfrey has built a ~3 billion dollar empire, which roughly rivals Trump's . Characterizing her as an host or actress while calling Trump a business seemed like an attempt to diminish her abilities. I assume it was just mere ignorance on your behalf, though.

That depends on the MW and shape of your protein or protein fragment that you use. Also note that at low concentrations it may be better to use a smaller volume filter and go several times over it rather than with a large volume, as in the latter case you may have higher loss due to adhesion to a larger surface area on the plastic material.

My preferred method of desalting and concentrating protein samples is simple ultracentrifugation using low MWCO filters. Use materials that have low protein adsorption. Dialysis tends to have low yields in my hands, too.

If your question is regarding events after the rise of eukaryotes, there are plenty more examples. Prominent examples include e.g. rhizobia or mycorrhiza. There many examples of relatively recent photosynthetic cases of endosymbiosis, especially in protists (Paulinella is an model organism for this), many flagellates have metabolic endosymbionts and so on and so forth.

So if I understand it correctly the issue is that known extraction methods would also release bound isocyanates?

AFAIK similar to MS techniques they require a significant amount of pure cells.

Isocyanates are associated with asthma in sensitive persons. IIRC this: was generally assumed to be true, but recently more sensitive methods were used and isocyanates were detected in a wide range of cured products. However, and quite commonly in these studies, it is not quite clear whether the detectable amounts pose health hazards. As MigL mentioned, once symptoms show up (which can be skin sensitization or asthma-like symptoms) it is better to replace them. Likewise, hypersensitive individuals may be better off not having those products around.

Morphological separation of bacteria is difficult. Automates systems like cell sorters do not work well on that scale and generally require some fluorescence markers. Theoretically, a variety of single-cell microfluidic systems could be used, but many are in the concept stages and require a lot of development. Setting up a working system can easily turn into a PhD thesis. The traditional approach would be to use plating to eventually isolate pure cultures and characterize those pure strain thoroughly.