CharonY

Yes that is the basic idea. I do not have actual quantitative values to support it, it is more a feel-good-lab-procedure (like the occasional blood sacrifice to keep the PCR gods happy). Personally, I would aim for a volume that corresponds to a single-use. If it is 500ul in your case, I would aim for that. It should be noted that storage time should not be considered indefinite. While I have seen aliquots still active after a few months, the efficiency can be quite variable past a month or so. I suspect that in some case at least it is also a matter of how cleanly you prepared your aliquots.

Generally I prefer to store trypsin dry whenever possible and only reconstitute the amount I need per use. I cannot tell you with certainty about stability in water, but one thing to keep in mind is that unless you flash freeze it, it takes quite a while to reach -80 and that there is quite a bit of time needed for that to thaw up again. That being said, for cell culture trypsinization, trypsin solution is routinely frozen at -20 to -80 C in an EDTA-saline solution. So if kinetics and a bit of loss is not a huge issue, I think it should be fine. I would probably still use very small aliquots to minimize the time to freeze/thaw.

It appears the answer is a firm "no". Advance, if you are not willing to learn about the very fundamentals of the things you want to talk about, all you can do is build sky castles with no substance. Anything you imagine will by default be wrong as the way you imagine it simply does not conform with reality. There is only so far you can get by using simple analogies

As Ophilolite said, it is well known the people get used to a specific sleep pattern and can wake up within minutes of a target time. However, for times that are widely out of the norm the result is often a less deep sleep with more awakenings (that you usually do not remember). This does rely to some extent on external cues, which could be city noises, light or a calibrated sleep pattern. If conducted under no external calibration (e.g. living underground without clocks) it tends to get out of what as the internal clock may assign a rhythm different to our usual 24h. With regards to OP there are several explanations, one being that either the poster made tearing noises that woke you up without you realizing, that something (e.g. draft or slamming door) caused both the poster to fall and waking you up or just pure coincidence (i.e. how often have you woken up without the poster falling? It is bound to coincide at some point).

The reason why the responses are different is that the response of each receptor to the same stimulus is different. Essentially we have a second messenger system in which a receptor recognizes its target molecule and then starts a signaling cascade. Howe the cascade looks like is very dependent on the receptor complexes and can have antagonistic actions, as described (i.e. beta type incrasing cAMP, alpha 2 inhibiting cAMP production). However, the overall physiological response (i.e. whether you see vasodilation or constriction) depends very much on the configuration of the whole system, such as the amount of alpha vs beta receptors. I am a bit rusty on that, but I believe that beta receptors are more sensitive (i.e. react to lower concentrations of epinephrine, whereas alphas are less sensitive but more abundant. So based on that (and neglecting other mechanisms), at lower concentration the beta response would be dominant (as they sense at levels at which alphas fail to respond), whereas at higher concentrations, the response of the alphas would override that of the much less abundant betas.

They exist because of the way our immune system works. Essentially it senses things entering our body and triggering an immune response. This is useful in cases of bacteria, but less so in case of pollen. Generally our body has not way to no beforehand what is going to be harmful or not, but in most cases harmless things only trigger mild inflammation (or no response at all). However, if you immune system is overly sensitive (e.g. due to lack of exposure to things in hyperhygienic environments as postulated by the hygiene theory) an allergy is the consequence. In extreme situations it may even mistake your own body as foreign and mount a response, and the result could be an autoimmune disease.

How would you distinguish mutated from unmutated sequences?

No, what you have to imagine is that the ions are solubilized. So if you look at the membrane there would be no deposition whatsoever. But if you measure the ions you will find that there is a gradient of ions, like a amorphous cloud. What I mean with decorated is that on cells there are sugars and proteins attached to the membrane and these affect the type of ions that surround them. Again, almost all biochemistry happens in solution. If it solidifies it becomes much more inert and it only happens for structural things. There are highly specific exceptions but I would not try to start thinking about that before one has a good grip on what is usually happening. I.e. no solidification. Because if you do, you start to develop theories that are pretty much meaningless.

This is a bit clearer but still very vague. Protein from host or bacterium? And I do not quite understand the connection to bacterimia. Many proteins that are produced by the host either are secreted or leak into the bloodstream (either by active transport or inadvertently during cell degradation). That happens independent of infection. The latter can change type and amount, depending on what precisely happened and what type of damage has been caused.

There are already people who store stem cells from their children after birth (using cord blood). Getting stem cells from other sources or older children is way trickier and hardly done (at least not commercially as far as I am aware of).

Well, I would separate clinical research and trials as, although related, they are are often conducted in a very different manner. The major differences being whether it is really still in the research stage or moving towards the applied area. The former is often conducted within academic units, especially very basic aspects, the latter is usually more associated with private industry, although in many cases it can be in the form of university startups or similar. A trial is less part of research but is conducted more by medical and administrative oriented personnel. And yes, it is expensive. But in isolation and without proper context it is pretty much meaningless to muse about economic impact.

I do not understand the question. Do you mean whether a localized infection can result in bacteremia? Or something else?

Papers are generally published in journals (not websites), but they are indexed in various databases and can be accessed via a number of search engines. Google scholar can be used freely to find papers, Web of Science can be accessed via a library. Pubmed is for medical/life science papers and pubmedcentral is an associated repository with free articles. Then there is arXiv which is an e-print archive more related to physics and mathematics. While students could in theory submit to a journal (you do not just post them), they are generally not of sufficient quality. Considering that an editor has to sift and sort through heaps of papers it would most likely waste someones precious time. It is highly recommended to go through an advisor first.

Assuming that it is a typical chaperone-like configuration I suspect that most bonds should easily break up during standard sample treatment (i.e. boiling before loading). If covalent bonds (i.e. sulphide bonds) are involved somehow it may help to add a reducing agent (such as DTT). However, this is rather rare. You could run a few controls (which do not necessarily have to be labelled) with only A and A+B to check whether you see any mas shifts. You probably need that control anyway. If you get double bands you can introduce harsher conditions and see whether it vanishes.

Considering that the OP clearly demonstrates no interest in acknowledging false premises and alter the them accordingly I am not very optimistic that a fruitful discusion can be had. Bu in the vain hope do demonstrate the OP got it arse-backwards: It is known that high stress levels increase cortisol levels, which in turn reduce testosterone levels. On the other hand it has been speculated that females may react better to chronic stress when it comes to health outcomes (e.g. less cardiovascular issues ) than males. Now, recently a mechanism has been described in rats by Wei et al. (Mol Psy 19; 2014) that indicates that estrogen appears to protect against glutamatergic transmission. As a result, they do not suffer from the same cognitive impairments due to stress as their male counterparts. It is true that there appears to be differences between genders when it comes to stress responses, but it appears that for the most part when faced with a stressor, females deal with it better as they are not locked as long in flight-or-fight as males. This is partially attributed to the release of oxytocin in females that has been mentioned in the OP. This, for most intents and purposes, could be seen as a healthy way to cope with stress. Together with potential protective effects of estrogen it is hard to see it as mental weakness; quite the opposite really. Also note that flight-and-fight is a mix between fear and aggression, which is quite emotional. Again, that is hard to see that as mental strength, especially as it is well known that many mental abilities go down the drain when you are flooded with adrenaline and cortisol. Women do tend to remember and recall stressful situations more than their male counterparts. However in high-stress situations (such as actual exposure to combat) there does not appear to be much of a differences as the extreme stress overwhelms the differences in stress coping responses between genders (see Vogt et al. J Abnorm Psy 120:4). To put into a whimsical way: males, when stressed get stupid and have more health issues. On the other hand, women tend to stress themselves over more things. But normalized to similar stress levels they appear to have less cognitive issues. There are also studies that suggest that women may suffer more from stress, but these are often survey-based and not with controlled stress application. In that case the observation that women tend to recall and react to stressful situations than their male counterpart may increase the actual experienced levels of stress. When facing extreme stress (as in combat) both cope roughly equally well (or bad).

Ions are highly polar and tissue is immersed in essentially water. Moreover the concentration is low enough for the ions to stay in solution. Every cell in our body is therefore suspended in a salt/ion containing solution. If there is precipitation, they could the start of something troublesome (such as kidney stones). Of course there are certain areas in our anatomy in which we want formation of solids (such as e.g. bones), but that is not the case for our organs. What you may have read is that cells have on their surface an ion cloud that is slightly different from the rest of the solution. This is due to two main reasons. First, cell surfaces are decorated with sugars and proteins which are charged. The ions in solution form a cloud of counter ions around them. The second is that cells actively pump ions (net protons) out of the cell further altering the the ion concentration immediately surrounding them. But it is incorrect to assume that the concentration would be high enough to create large amounts of precipitate, which would be quite troublesome.

Just imagine that these people have children (*shudder*). Guess how much they will encourage their daughters to pursue a science career.

Yes, she was (among other things) a statistician. Also she was the first woman to become member of the Royal Statistical Society. Edit: Crossposted.

Or look at department websites. Or maybe one should just ignore the troll.

That is quite interesting, considering that apparently the author thinks differently. To quote from the book blurb: Assuming you read the book (which does not appear to be the case) you have come to quite a different conclusion than the author herself. In various interview she reinforced her finding that current literature does in fact no support substantial differences between genders at birth. Hormones and other developmental factors do form a bias, but only through cultural and social shaping do these emerge in the differences that we perceive later on. In other words, her main thesis that society shapes and forms gender differences. One cited examples was a lab study in which 11-month olds crawled over a carpeted slope and the moms could change the angle of the slope. Both genders were equally good at crawling, but the mothers consistently overestimated the boy's ability, while underestimating the girl's. Or to summarize, read what is written, not what you think is written.

Well, the protein complex can break up if you run a SDS-page (as it is denaturing). Assuming a highly specific antibody you should be able to see it though (i.e. a higher MW band for the complex, a lower for A alone). If you got A alone it (i.e. the complex breaks up during sample treatment) you should be in the clear. If you got semi-stable complexes it may add variance to your expression data. Personally I would tend to go with a MS-based quantification (if only for convenience and higher sample throughput). But not every lab may have access to it...

the ions in the body and around cells remain solution. I.e. you have an ion cloud (in solution) of sorts not a precipitate or a buildup of sorts.

That is pretty much impossible, or rather you take damage elsewhere before the lungs. There is an extremely efficient heat exchange system in the anterior portion of the nose cavities that rapidly heats up the air via mucosal surfaces. As result the air passing that area is quickly heated up to around 30-37 C before entering the lungs. In order to freeze intake the mucosal surfaces would have to be at a very low temp close to freezing point themselves, which pretty much means that the body is already dead.

Much of the cells shed off from the body are dead to begin with. The rest tend to dry out and die. If it is humid enough there will be bacterial degradation to accelerate it.

Could you rephrase that? I have no idea what you are asking. Are you wondering about how cells and organisms get degraded?