CharonY

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.

Actually, it is not even that. The job is typically to disprove something. If repeated attempts fail to disprove something, we kind of confirm it (until someone gets a better idea to approach it). In other words, we confirm something by disproving alternative hypotheses.

If it happens rarely enough and the accompanying email presents genuine interest, most authors likely would not have an issue with that.

Well, as I mentioned it would require to have pathogenic E. coli strains to begin with (e.g. EHEC vs EPEC). Furthermore, it depends how fresh and well the beef was stored before the incident. For example, raw beef that is well processed is typically fairly safe and can be eaten raw (see. e.g. steak tartar) with relatively rare incidences. Typically the worst you get is a bit of passing diarrhea. In the end, exposure to bacteria only increases chances but is never a sure thing. However doorknobs and similar are very unlikely to lead to something serious, even if you licked the knob (and certainly not sepsis, that is a completely different issue which would require severe untreated infections). It would be different if you started doing it everyday, for example (although you may prime your immune system to fight it).

What you are looking for is the infectious/infective dose. However it is not that is not easy to generalize as it depends on the strain, the pathway of infection an your immune system (as well as native flora). For example, oral doses are usually relatively high as many bacteria are killed during passage through stomach and once in the gut they are heavily outcompeted by your native flora. But if they get into the bloodstream via a wound, you need less bacteria to cause issues. It should also be added that many (most?) E. coli strains are harmless, though there are nasty exceptions. Accordingly the most aggressive E. coli can establish infections with as little as few hundred cells (e.g. EHEC), whereas some are more in the order of millions (EPEC).

If your question why establishing LOD is important, it is a benchmark for analyses. Obviously, if the detection limit is not adequate for your sample, it means that you either need to change your sample prep, or your instrument.

Individual manufacturers produce the things you described. Some manufacturers have merged into larger companies (such as GE or Thermo Fisher) and may sell instruments with under the same label. The production and development is down in the respective sub-branches though. And considering the range of instruments being described I cannot think of a single company that is doing everything. With regards to leading, that would depend on the instrument.