CharonY

Yes, as long as intensity, exposure time and wavelength are in the right order of magnitude it will work. How it is achieved is of secondary nature.

It also depends a bit whether you use traditional or simplified. In the former you can see more easily what the characters is derived from.

Windows 10 as a whole compares quite favorable overall to e.g. 7 in terms of resource use and footprint. Privacy is a major concern. However, this is basically true for almost all modern devices as they heavily tie in into cloud, mail and other services provided by MS, Apple or Google. Probably the only way out is to run linux on computers and use phone only for calls... http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/windows-10s-privacy-policy-is-the-new-normal/ One can disable services such as cortana to minimize sending information, but if you use any kind of mail service, well you are sending them info regardless.

It just means that the cell line can be cultured indefinitely. Most cells in culture will only grow so much and stop. Cancer cells are exceptions, for example. For most cell biologists the only interesting bit is that you can just transfer them and let them grow again for new experiments instead of starting cell lines from scratch.

I have the study downloaded a few years ago. I am not sure about the website.

Geez there are hundreds around. There are many techniques now to create them (other than isolate them). Note that the point is that they are hopefully not unique. Uniqueness would limit their use as they are often used as representative of the tissue they come from. Although there is a move away from that as sometimes their ability to proliferate indefinitely makes them more useful for tumor research. From random memory: BJ-5ta, Chon, Jurkat, BeWo, ASC52telo, HepG2, UACC-893, HEK 293 and many many more. You can google them, if you want but I am not sure what you expect to find. HeLa was historically significant as it was one of the first, it was/is very popular and also is connected to ethical issues with use of human material without consent.

Well, from what understand the GOP leadership dislikes Cruz and is more likely to go for Rubio (especially as he polls favorably against Clinton).

And not doing that much worse either.

The part about the cell lines was just to emphasize that even at that time there was research on cell lines. The issue there is that they do not proliferate much and you have establish new lines fairly soon (I am not 100% sure what the precise status at that time was, though). The fact that they were immortalized was a huge convenience factor as establishing a cell line takes a huge amount time and has a limited use. The real nice thing was that you eliminate some level of biological variability as you have the precise same cell line (which is now common practice in many areas). However, the convenience came at the cost that I mentioned (i.e. it started contaminating the other cultures), but obviously it was due to fault epxerimentators (after all, cell lines are often maintained by students). The workhorse part is I guess a common difference in view between scientists and the public. The latter likes things that are shiny, unique and exceptional. The scientist values reliability and reproducibility above all else. A workhorse is a fair characterization and precisely why it is well liked and used. Not because it is unique. Over the years HeLa got more problems, precisely because it is an old cell line. It was found that they accumulated mutations and increased viral loads and as a consequence there may be HeLas around with somewhat different properties. That is also not something unique for old cell lines, however being the first it saw probably more abuse than newer ones.

Well, looks like no delegates for Rubio, two each for Cruz and Bush, three for Kasich and 10 for Trump. O'Malley got almost a third of a percent.

I do not either. What has been misstated by OP that is the only source of immortalized cell lines. It is also somewhat relevant to put the use in historic context, but obviously it is hard to tell whether other models would have become more popular if HeLa wasn't around and how it may have slowed down research. That being said, it is still heavily used, but research has progressed, obviously. Related to that we do have improved techniques to create and maintain cell lines, although it is still far from trivial.

She is certainly not the only source of immortalized human cells (there are many more established lines) and may not even be the first cell line, but I am pretty sure it is the first successfully established immortalized cell line. This is also a case of questionable research ethics as her cells were taken and used without her knowledge or consent (which would be against all recent ethical guidelines). On a different note, since HeLa cells grow pretty fast and robustly (at least compared to many other cell lines), many labs had problem that they overgrew other tissues. As a result some studies were faulty as they were accidentally conducted with HeLa instead of the actual cells of interest. In terms of medical breakthroughs, it is probably accurate to characterize them as workhorses, a standard tool for human analyses (similar to E. coli as a microbial model). That being said, since more and more cell lines are available and since it is known that different cell lines react very differently to stimuli, they are not as important as they once were.

You are arguing as if quantum effects would add something new to the processes. But they don't. Quantum effects do not increase efficiency of photosynthesis, they are part of it. Virtually anything in the molecular regime is governed by quantum effects if you try to follow the events precisely. However, in chemistry we utilize stochastic models to approximate these events as it is easier and still reasonable accurate for what we want to do. And again, just because we are not really good at bridging the quantum world with the macroscopic world mathematically it does not mean that by adding quantum to the mix we change the output on the macroscopic world. Rather, what we see is the result of all the effects happening on the smaller scale. It is the same, not an added effect.

Yes it just means less than a micron (roughly size of organelle) and it is a common fluff piece to mention quantum effects for added mysticism. Actually, quantum effects tend to be relevant when we go into the lower nm range. And when you think about it, they are part of normal biochemical processes, and not specific to something like the mind. Many electron transfer reactions are best modeled via quantum tunneling, for example. In many ways, it is rather mundane, but complicated.

Well, short as it is that post clearly demonstrates significant lack in a surprising wide range of areas. I will highlight one thing though. Arete has provided important insight into some aspects of a graduate degree and how it relates to succeed in that endeavor. Considering that being able to derive and utilize information is but a very basic skill (even disregarding the need for social skills for now) it casts severe doubts in the ability of the poster to even succeed in undergrad.

I am not sure what you mean. We all do have numerous genes involved in DNA repair in our genome.

tar, are you reading posts before you comment on them? It is a difference of 660 total. So with about 32,000 suicides in that year, the contribution of vets above the normal population would amount to 32,600 suicides, or, an increase of ~0.2%. If you track the numbers over time you see that vet suicides do not contribute much to the overall increase in male mortality. And note that the vet suicide number includes everyone that has served at any given point in their life (i.e. their suicide could be entirely unrelated to their vet experience). What it means is simply that being a male vet increases the rate suicide very slightly, but the overall male suicide rate among non-vets is almost as high. Thus, while suicide may be one contributing factor of the increase in male mortality (with drug abuse being and even more relevant factor), being a vet does not change the number by much. Thus being a vet is not the driving factor behind suicides.

Actually there are already diaxotrophs associated with maize. It is not a strong symbiotic relationship as with rhizobia and legumes, but moderate production increase can be seen in some cases. How to establish these relationships is still the holy grail of nitrogen fixation researchers.

Eh, when in Rome.

Actually the staring just intensifies. Yes on both accounts.

A) The glow is due to a single protein (GFP). Much easier than actually having metabolic activities. B) melons are grown in a square mold. Has nothing to do with genetics. C) There is nothing that "never rots". They can be more resistant to mold, freezing or other things though. Also typically conferred by a single protein. Modifying organisms to exhibit specific phenotypes is much harder than you imagine and we have still huge knowledge gaps to deal with.

Tar, it is simple math. I do not have the precise numbers for the same years but the 32.1 per 100k represent about 6300 suicides. Decreasing it to the national average of 28.7 is about a total of 5632, i.e. an excess of about 660 suicides. However, the total amount of male suicides is about 32k. Thus the 660 would amount to 0.2% difference. Considering that suicide is not even the main driver of mortality this amount is unlikely to contribute significantly to the tally.

Because in order for a system to work it is not enough to just have the genes. They have to assemble protein apparatus, localize it properly and regulate their expression and integrate it into the existing metabolic background. It is incredibly tricky to confer anything that is somewhat more complicated (i.e. more than a handful steps).

Organisms cannot break down CO2. They can however fix it, which I assume is what you mean. It basically only works on bacteria as they are most flexible in use of reducing equivalents (and their ability to dump them) and maybe some unicellular organisms. Overall it is not clear that it has any benefits, as photosynthetic can utilize sunlight. Nitrogen fixation is another thing entirely and while there are bacteria able to do so, we are unable to confer this ability to non-fixing bacteria via genetic modification.

And adhering to specific dress codes also helps to blend in or to display status, if needed. For example, in medical research meetings I wear a suit. It is fitted, indicating I am not a student but its cheapness suggest I am not an MD. Hence it shows that I am a biology researcher. If, on the other hand, I meet mathematicians, I sometimes wear pants.