CharonY

As mentioned, cancer is essentially not a disease per se, but rather a systemic issue with the way our cells propagate themselves. There will be no simple cure just a hope that we will find something that kills those cells more efficiently than others. Even today, more focused approaches are not that selective and have mostly been shown to be effective in cultures. In whole organisms or even tissues it will be quite difficult and is likely to cause severe damage (but hopefully less than full-blown chemo). In addition to cell-type specificity there is also the issue of delivery, for example. HIV has the issue that the parts being identified by our immune system change a lot so that vaccinations generally do not work. I have heard of some progress in that area, though.

I do not understand your question. The alternative name for leucine is 2-Amino-4-methylpentanoic acid. In addition UUC codes for phenylalanin. Leucine is coded by UUA UUG CUU CUC CUA CUG .

There are probably too many issues to list them comprehensively but things that pop into my mind are: - we do not know how precisely the proteins have to work together to result in a specific phenotype. The interplay of the components is very intricate, and quantitative (i.e. it is not a on/off situation but rather requires a delicate balance) - even if we knew the components and the required equilibria, we do not know how to carefully balance them out. Most genetic manipulations are very heavy-handed - even if we could do that, we lack the means to to so coordinated in a large number of cell (e.g. within a tissue) - even if we could do that, there is a chance that we disrupt existing functions. No metabolic activity happens in isolation. If you tweak things on one end, a lot of further elements are getting affected. While we are starting to developing techniques to monitor it (on the cellular level) we still lack a comprehensive view of all the events and their consequences on a more complex level. In short, we do not know enough.

How? By starting yet another war that the US could not really afford? How else could he support the uprising? Also, similarly to the US those anti-Assad are not necessarily pro-US, which makes taking sides quite tricky. That being said: The Syrian government has accepted a Russian proposal to put its chemical weapons under international control to avoid a possible U.S. military strike, Interfax news agency quoted Syria's foreign minister as saying on Tuesday.

The general notation for DNA is usually the 5' to 3' (e.g. TGAGACCTGAAGA). The complementary strand is usually not indicated as the pairing rules make it obvious what it would be. There is no way to know what goes next based on a short string unless you know where it originated from, as said above.

Yes, certainly. The enzyme may degrade over time, but that can also happen quite quickly if protease contamination is present. Even at -20 enzymes lose quite a bit of their efficiency, which can be accelerated quite a bit buy freeze-thaw cycles.

Uh, but if a non-tattooed person does not care, does it make him/her tattooed?

Good analytical chemistry classes are usually also more instrumental, especially if the include bioanalytical techniques. I.e. instead of basic chemistry it will be much more focused on how it can be exploited e.g. for differentiation of molecules.

Reading through the wiki articles should be a good basis. In addition, you really have to be clear for what the internal standard is being used. Depending on whether it is for normalize elution time or signal area, for example. In some cases an external standard is much more useful.

Are you using UV detection or MS? If it is only UV you cannot use the same compound as internal standard since, as you pointed out, you would measure the combined amount of sample+standard. In an MS you would use an isotope labeled compound where you could distinguish standard from sample. Instead you can only use an internal standard (to judge the run quality) that is a different compound not found in the tissue. To your questions: 1) You would generally use a matrix that is similar to your sample (ideally leaf tissue that is completely free of SA) and spike it with the known amount. Alternatively you can make a baseline subtraction (i.e. measuring the base SA level and compare it to the spiked sample). The latter is a bit less reliable, though. The recovery rate is then based on the area of a pure SA sample (i.e. you do three runs, pure SA, spiked sample, pure sample). There can be an additional error introduced by the sample prep itself, if e.g. additional UV absorbing components are present. 2) Yes, hence you also to run non-spiked samples.

It indeed refers to the insertion or deletion of a base at that position (so either absence or presence of an additional G) on the respective chromsome (remember, we are diploid).

For complex multicellular organisms unlikely, at least in the way described. That being said, horizontal gene transfer is quite common and is a major force in evolution. It would not be a directed response to a stimulus though (i.e. developing heat resistance after sensing heat). Instead after acquisition of external DNA either from other organisms (e.g. via mobile genetic elements) or from the environment (i.e. via transformation) would be more or less random-ish (i.e. transfer rate is independent of phenotype) but could be selected for due to the environmental pressure. Another analogy is the error-prone repair mechanisms of some single organisms, in which case the mutation rate is higher under stress.

I think this is not the point. What is being wrong, if the bottom line is similar? Also it has not been established that it would be better (or worse) without the EU. To me there is a lot of opinion in this thread, but almost no data to support them. Also if debt is any indicator of good policy then we should promptly copy, say, Iran (about 1% government debt as % GDP). Or Sweden (-17%!). Wait no, Sweden is being destroyed by the EU.

Ouch no, that is wrong. I appreciate your enthusiasm but please do not post guessworks and proclaim them to be facts. You may confuse people. Endorphin is a summary term for endogeneous peptides that bind to opiate receptors. What OP is referring to is probably the difference between alpha-endorphin (a specific peptide in that group) and alpha-neoendorphin. The former being a peptide with the sequence Tyr-Gly-Gly-Phe-Met-Thr-Ser-Glu-Lys-Ser-Gln-Thr-Pro-Leu-Val-Thr and the latter Tyr-Gly-Gly-Phe-Leu-Arg-Lys-Tyr-Pro-Lys. Proenkephalin B the precursor of alpha-neoendorphin is way larger (254 AA). Generally, peptide and protein nomenclature does not follow the same rules as other, smaller C-bodies and can be a bit confusing at times. Even worse, many have several names, depending how it was identified and characterized.

I think in this context it is relevant to note that politicians in other countries have pushed for a similar control over science, including the US and Canada. http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/04/u.s.-lawmaker-proposes-new-criteria-choosing-nsf-grants http://business.financialpost.com/2013/05/14/how-should-science-research-funding-be-determined/?__lsa=d350-a2a2 In several grant mechanisms in Canada you have to submit the direct benefits (in terms of health or economy for Canada) of your proposed research. These things cripple fundamental sciences, of course. There is also a general push towards sustainability of programs, i.e. the research is supposed to generate revenue to finance itself, again something that is virtually impossible for basic research. Considering that almost the only source of basic research are government funding, this paint a very bleak view for the future of discoveries.

To be fair, from the description it does not really look like that religion is prime reason, rather that one being a dick and the other one having lack of self control (and too much drugs and booze).

I assume you are aware that these criteria are neither universal nor undisputed and essentially is descriptive? I.e. the definition is essentially derived by first declaring something to be alive (i.e. cell) and then distinguish it from everything else.

There is a push towards open source publishing. However, many prestigious journals are still in the hands of publishing companies that want to turn a profit. Note that the scientists actually have to be pay for publishing and in some cases open source journals are more expensive. Some for-profit journals are actually free to publish in, if you do not include color prints, for example. Obviously, most scientists would be happier if more people could read their work. but sometimes budget constraints are very, very tough.

I think there is a pattern here somewhere. Quickly, write up a grant proposal to investigate it!

Sorry, but the post has some serious errors that I feel I have to point out. That is wrong, the term is not interchangeable. Prokaryotes include bacteria as well as archaea, both characterized by having no nucleus That is true but it is a weird distinction as eukaryotes obviously also covers all other animals as well as fungi. Chemotaxis refers to directional movement not tot the means of movement. Also chemotaxis can be negative as well as positive (i.e. the chemical response is not only to nutrients) and there are other cues to which cells can respond. Also wrong, cytosol and cytoplasm are present in all cells. Cytosol essentially refers to the soluble part of the cytoplasm (in both cases). There are also a number of minor inaccuracies or omission (e.g. depending on the type of pili they have a lot of different functions including movement and attachment). Or the fact that the genome is by definition the sum of all genetic material (chromosome+plasmids) and so on.

Also the multiple parties is extremely relevant as they are obviously representatives from a given nation. More importantly, the parties are made up from certain parties of the originating countries, which also means that the EU parliament members obviously are also involved in national politics. As such the EU is a huge battleground for national interests as well as an international platform for national in-fights rather than a tyrannical organization that can dictate the individual member states with impunity. Due to its very system it would be the most useless tool for tyranny as we not only have conflicts along party lines, but also between nation representatives belonging to the same umbrella party. Also note that throughout the EU severe austerity measures are in place. So severe that many economists (most vocally Krugman) argue that they will heavily hamper growth. Although that would lead to a different discussion (as financing a complex system such as a nation is markedly different from the simple calculations one would do for a private household).

In addition to what iNow said, there are quite a few religions that assume interconnectivity between humans and animals. According to buddhistic doctrine humans can be reborn as animals and vice-versa. As such humans are not apart from the rest of the animal world. Similar beliefs are held by smaller religious groups, such as Australian aborigines, who believe that animals and plants were people during the creation period. Essentially the premise of OP is flawed in several ways.

I feel that I have been controlled by my brain my whole life, though.

An upturned bowl works just as well.

All things considered this is highly speculative so, I'll move it to that section for now.