CharonY

Well, to be fair, even organisms that are close to us (i.e. those found on Earth) are quite alien and different if you look into them. In fact, biology has delivered us more varied and alien lifestyles than Hollywood. I would be curious to know whether extraterrestrial life could be any weirder than what we already have...

Well, price and support does vary to some extent between countries so it is not that easy to generalize. We had bought large amounts from Abcam and Pierce mostly but also sourced from many other major companies. Unfortunately for custom antibodies it is a bit hit and miss. We never found a single company that could make all ABs work. Sometimes, for some reasons, a specific one would not work from one company, but sourced from another company (with same parameters) it worked in our hands. Some do not work at all, etc. In the end I would could go according to price (if you plan to do many customs they may quote you a better price) and just try them out.

The main reasons for stroke is that they create lesions in the brain. If these are the areas that receive afferent information from a given part of your body, you will lose the ability to sense it. Re-learning is typically done by having other brain areas take over that function. Obviously for sensing the actual pathway (i.e. fibers leading from transducing neurons to specific brain areas) is used in conjunction with the the integrated signal (as typically heavy processing is done before signals reach the brain).

Not even using old knowledge was the assumption you made 100% correct. The main issue is that you have a limited knowledge of the subject (which, again, is quite alright), which lead you to overinterpret things you need (which is slightly less alright). I feel there is too much I would need to convey to demonstrate all the points that you are simply wrong. And even worse, you like to argue from a position of ignorance rather than trying to fix the knowledge gaps. For example the Zotterman reference most likely just refers to the detection of certain fibers that react to both extremes. Yet, this does not mean that this is the only mechanism of thermoception, nor does it explain at all the illusion of the grill. That actually requires the action of two parallel afferent pathways. Again, something completely ignored (presumably because it was not understood). You claim that the mechanism behind the grill is a simple one and proposed early speculations as facts, whereas the actual understanding of the mechanism was elucidated around the 90s (though many speculations were debunked much earlier). A basic ignorance on the way neurons function is somewhat revealed in this quote: As I wrote above, thermosensors (and again, it is a different pathway than nociception) fire constantly at body temperature. However, for cold sensitive sensors, the frequency goes down, when the temperature rises, whereas for heat sensitive ones the frequency increases (and vice versa for cold sensation). It is not that suddenly there is an overflow of both types of neurons that suddenly than charge up or trigger nociceptors. They react to distinct stimuli. In fact, the way the grill works is because the cold sensitive fibers are not acting (as they have an inhibitory effect). Pretty much the opposite to your claim. You really have to understand that the sensation caused by the grill is physiologically distinct from actual harmful temps, in the latter case the nociceptors are triggered, whereas on the grill only the thermosensors are (and due to higher-level interaction it is perceived as burn). I really do not get the childish insistence on being right. The claim can be summarized that temperature and associated pain perception requires different afferent pathways that interact on the intermediate level and can be tricked using setups such as the thermal grill. The claim that every heat perception is requiring both cold and warm sensor neurons being triggered is simply wrong.

Or to reiterate a point that Ophiolite made, if humans were not adapted to the situation found in the various geographic locations, we would not find humans there.

No, it would not. Above a certain temperature the thermosensors do not react. That is what makes the illusion weird. I.e. it actually activates thermosensors that do not elicit the stinging pain, whereas during actual pain only the nociceptors are active, whereas the thermosensors are not. This is quite distinct from overloading. I.e. if the temperature is very high, the actual thermoreceptors are not firing at all. With regard to hot coffee and cold receptors, your answer/speculation is quite wrong again. The actual response is highly dependent on the type of thermosensory cell (or rather, its decoration with heat or cold sensitive channels). Some integrate information from high and low temps and change firing frequency accordingly. So typically fibers associated with cold sensing will fire continuously at body temp, increase firing rate at cold temps and, in case of hot coffee, will reduce their firing rate. What you mention is a speculation that was formed quite a while back, but is not substantiated by current knowledge anymore. See for example Craig and Bushnell, Science 1994 265/5169 p.252. Also note that you should have started off with the citation (dated as may be) rather than with own speculations to streamline the discussion. The reason for the presence of the pseudoscience is less the content, but rather the way information is presented. I.e. you were presenting speculations as facts and only now added a pdf that at least somewhat supported that claim. Of course, the pdf itself is not actual primary literature and only presented speculation by itself, which, as I pointed out, is simply not in line with current (well, about as current as I can remember last time reading about it, which is easily a decade year old) knowledge.

It is mostly due to the rather liberal use of definition that resulted in the erroneous conclusions drawn in OP. There is a reason why precise language in science is quite important. For example this summary: Is a nice narrative, but either slightly wrong, if we keep things on the analogy level, or very wrong if we want to be slightly precise how the receptors actually work. The receptors are not coupled in any way, so there is no overload of one and another kicking in. Rather, you have a wide range of ion channels that are temperature sensitive. Their opening results in action potentials that are then subsequently (to keep it simple) interpreted as temperature sensation. These belong to the TRP family of ion channels and various members react to different temperatures. E.g. TRPV4 is activated at moderate temperatures (up to roughly low 30s) whereas TRPV2 reacts if a temperature of more than 50 is reached. While the mechanisms are, to my knowledge, not fully elucidated, it allows sensory neurons to react distinctly to a quite broad range of temperatures. Note that this is in reference to the "detect" part of the OP; i.e. The tricky part, however, is that in addition to thermosensors (i.e. neurons with these channels) nociceptors exist and react to a broad range stimuli (polymodal C-nociceptors are activated by heat, cold and pinching, for example). However, it is not that one system is overloaded and thus activating the others but there are parallel processing of this information as well as interactions of various levels. This forms the basis of the Thurnberg illusion, which, just to make clear, is physiologically distinct from how we typically sense harmful temperature. One important and somewhat confusing element is the grill activates thermoceptors, but not nociceptors. What actually happens is the following. The activity of polymodal C-nociceptors (that invoke the pain) are typically masked by the activity of thermoceptors that react to cooling. On the grill however, their activity is inhibited by the application of warmth. Thus the information from the thermosensors no longer blocks the activity of the the nociceptors letting the brain interpret the resulting signal as pain. Note that physiologically this is closer to what happens when the body actually experiences noxious cold (not heat). Thus the grill evokes a patterns that confuses the circuits by interfering with proper cold-sensing. To put it crudely it fuddles with the normal thermosensory circuits in such a way that the pain receptors suddenly tell the brain what is going on (wrongly) rather than using the proper pathways. Obviously, actual exposure to harmful temperatures would activate the nociceptors instead of the thermosensory circuits (i.e. not an overload, but parallel processing). In other words, OP is misinterpretating the illusion with the way how typical heat sensing is processed, which is alright, as it is actually quite complicated. However, the further extrapolation based on this misinterpretation is what pushed this to the pseudoscience area.

Unfortunately degrees do not guarantee jobs anymore, as already mentioned a couple of times. The best chances are by networking, typically.

The lab coat and goggles have very specific functions as protective gear. I would discourage using them outside of these situations, especially if there is a chance that she may want to become a student in an actual lab at some point. If she is used to wear them for fun it may put her in the wrong mindset. Likewise, at that age she should not do any experiments that require protective gear. Just to clarify, dressing up for a Halloween shot, certainly, but dressing up on a more constant basis, potentially not such a good idea.

In that case, the restriction looks pretty much as expected. It is just not resolved in the high MW area (the top would be around 1 kb). To see more (and see if it worked) you should go with 0.5-0.8%.

You may want to pick up bird watching, if that is possible in your area. This has zoological and ecological aspects and gets her outside, too.

I presume you are using ultrapure water (or double-distilled) not merely deionized? More importantly, what % is the gel and is it really a 100bp ladder (a 6-mer enzyme should yield fragments with an average size of about 4 kb...

Excellent information and just to emphasize, individual health issues did arise due to the agricultural revolution (not specific to wheat). However, this was also the only way to sustain the population and the eventual rise of civilization. Together, this has allowed humans to change their environment in a way that not not merely allow survival but ensures success in an unprecedented scale. Without wheat or other agriculture crops the vast majority of humans would simply have not lived, celiac disease or not.

That is not going to work well. For OP, acetone precipitation is pretty much one of the fastest ways to concentrate and (to some extent) desalt proteins. With regards to cell removal it is not clear to me how lengthy your procedure is but typically involves centrifugation and/or filtration. In some cases there is even further extraction to remove polysaccharides but how crude the extraction could be really depends on what type of analyses you want to do downstream.

Yeah, I need a citation for that.

Short answer is: yes, most of the time. Depends on a lot of factors, though (e.g. length, purity buffer etc.).

I am not sure what you want precisely, but experimentally resolved protein structure are typically found e.g. in the RCSB protein data bank.

Seems very indicative of a leak. While it is odd that fittings should be loose if no one touches them, it sometimes happens (especially when the instrument cools down). I would go through that again in more detail, check proper seating of ferrules etc (typically column -> MS is the culprit). And once everything is secured run another air/water check. If that does not work you may have to use more elaborate approaches (i.e. aerosols or capping off parts) to find where it is.

Depends on the journal. Many allow you to use pre-print versions of your manuscripts.

Cells are easily visible with light microscopes, however, nanoparticles are not. However, there are different means to detect them either using higher resolution techniques such as electron or atomic force microscopy or just extract them and identify and quantify the particles using other means (including mass spectrometry). One thing of note is that the particles are not that specific, but the idea is to use coating or other methods so that they are preferentially taken up by the cells. The question then becomes whether this particles are enriched in the target cell types, which makes analyses easier. In many cases microscopic imaging is not as useful fro statistical analyses as one often has too few good images to actually count the particles. Instead there are other quantification methods and approaches that can be used. For example, for fluorescent particles the enrichment can be quantified by measuring the emitted light intensity.

That seems like a very high number. Thanks for the link, I will look into that. That being said, since I collaborate with MDs as a scientist, I found that they typically make it quite clear that the the science stuff is my area, not theirs. I can imagine that they are not saying the same in front of patients, however. But on the other hand, if they do that, they leave the door open to people who randomly diagnose themselves and mess up medication since they do not trust doctors. I do agree that it should be clearer to the public where the official medical guidelines end and where personal interpretation starts.

I would like to see the percentage of these quack doctors and whether they just reflect the fringe (as in any other profession). What I mean is that even among well-trained scientist you will find some that try to sell things that are either not mainstream or simply silly.

Precisely. If a scientist (or science communicator) gets all hand-wavy it just gives anti-science people credibility and legitimacy to their data-free approaches.

Note that our bodies adapt only within our own lifetime but that is not necessarily transferred to the next generation. What you may be thinking of is that whether in a population a pool of e.g. high cholesterol resistant people may persist while others die off.. The key point is whether that diet influences reproductive success. Typically issues associated with high fat, salt and sugar (I think it is better to specifically target these points as "processed" is a bit broad) manifest issues later in live (on average). So people may start dying in their 50s (to pull out a random number), but they will have had kids before that.

Well, it depends on how accurate and detailed your answer is. Of course it is a brain phenomenon, but the precise mechanisms as a whole are elusive. A statement as this: Does not really tell you much, doe it? What is a projected processing, and what are emotions. How are the "tied" together? This does not really tell us how it work, does it? You might as well state that there are neuronal processes that do it. Probably not wrong, but not really informative either.