CharonY

Just by looking at colonies (without use of selective and/or indicator agar) it is generally not possible to reliably identify bacteria. TA is pretty much non-selective (though not super-rich, either). Random guesses would probably include Pseudomonas and corynebacteria, as you can find them pretty much everywhere.

There is no fixed form to which you have to adhere. I would put research higher up and without details I do know how related experience would differ from related skills. Another thing to remember is to keep it short and concise. Few like to read through a lot of fluff.

The form of the CV tends to be more dependent on what you apply for (industrial, academic, type of position), rather than the field. That being said, for PhD applications standard material are: - a cover letter stating your interests and why you are a good fit; do not repeat CV here, but rather give your profile another dimension - CV in a in tabular form, highlighting education (on that level attended courses and grades are often shown), lab experience (i.e. undergrad research), teaching experience (e.g. as TA). To be honest, most applications at that level look very similar, so it is somewhat important to have a cover letter that is well-written.

Actually re-reading the question I have to say that I am not sure what the question really is. It is not clear to me, for instance, what precisely should be unique. Unique for an individual (i.e. a specific genome), unique for a genomic region or unique for a gene. My initial assumption was that the question aimed at looking at a stretch that would uniquely hybridize to a given 25 kb region. But that may very well not be the case.

Half man half hobbit?

The question is completely unrelated to genes (not all sequences on the DNA are coding for genes). Instead, it asks how long does a sequence has to be, in order to be unique for a 25 kb region. The exponent is derived from the fact that each position can have on of four bases (ACGT). Now, if your sequence has only one base, you will find that at each position of the 25 kb stretch you have a 1/4 chance of having this particular base. Obviously, this is not unique at all. So how long does it has to be? Also moved to homework.

I do not know who the people are that you are referring to. However, based on what you said I would not accept nutritional or even medical advice from them.

Typically volume down to a ml are done with volumetric flasks (i.e. rinse the whole sample into it with appropriate buffer, then fill up to the mark). For smaller volumes often pipettors are used (which can be a bit tricky). That is why often stock solutions with somewhat higher volumes (i.e. at least an ml) are generally used and then diluted using pipettors.

Normally the final volume is used.

The actual fermentation pathway to ethanol using sugars as starting material does not yield methanol. So there is no equilibrium reaction between those two constituents. However, during fermentation of beverages the starting material is more complicated (e.g. grapes for wine). Methanol can then be released during the breakdown mostly from pectin, I think. During pectin degradation a methyl residue is removed from a methylesterified galacturonosyl yielding methanol and a homogalacturonan, I think. So again, it is mostly decoupled from the ethanol fermentation pathway. However, many plants (especially the fruit) for fermentation are not terribly high in pectin and for wine I found concentrations between 0.1-0.2 g/L (or 0.01-0.02 % w/v).

Well actually both were MDs and switched to biochemistry from there... Also, there is no pure bio Nobel (medicine and physiology is a bit more specialized).

Since when is he a scientist? As far as I can see he got an MD and was working as practitioner.

Indeed. Different organs have different turnover rates with the brain having one of the somewhat lower ones, but development is ongoing.

Actually serotonin levels affect wakefulness. I.e. high levels of serotonin inhibit REM sleep. Edit to add that that it may not be strictly true as the pathways are somewhat complicated and under certain conditions this does not hold to be true.

I think this can be merged with http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69616-evolution-is-a-lie-from-hell-republican-rep-paul-broun/

Well technically it will work on all serine proteases by esterification. However the issues with PMSF tends to be its stability/solubility in aqueous, high-salt and/or high pH solutions. Personally I prefer some of the newer cocktails as they give more consistent results. That being said, plasmin required relatively high amounts to be deactivated, IIRC, and together with low solubility/stability of PMSF could be an issue.

I am not sure whether you are referring to evolution as the process itself or the theoretical background explaining it. Modern synthesis (or Darwinism for that matter) refers to the latter. The conditions under which evolution occurs are pretty straightforward, actually. Predictive statements are the complicated part. Considering that evolution is a high level mechanism I do not see that it has to be an accepted premise of any sort. If you have a situation that does not conform to the H-W equilibrium evolution is pretty much an unavoidable consequence. There is not need to believe in that. If I use the term as proposed by Ophiolite it would be correct to state that Darwinism describes the processes of evolution, pretty much the same way that Newtonian mechanics describe the movement of objects under the influence of forces. I doubt you would describe classical mechanics as the belief that an object dropped on earth will fall towards the ground, for example.

Good points. Also it should be added that the whatever one proposes should advance the knowledge in the field to some extent and also provide data. For instance and alternative interpretation of existing data may be nice, but if there is no data to support it, it is only one of gazillion ideas that are thrown around and never followed-up in the lab. It is different if a problem has been well-recognized as such and the theory could provide testable hypotheses to solve the issue.

I would eliminate belief from that statement as it implies a meta-view on the process. Whatever we call it (either Darwinism, new synthesis, Mocklefrock) describes the evolutionary process (to the extent we understand it) and forms the theoretical framework for its study. The description of the mechanisms are implicit to that. Based on that the addition of "ongoing" is also unnecessary as the framework would define under which conditions evolution would be ongoing or not (such as under H-W equilibria).

The only thing of note is that we still do not have collected all the mechanisms and have not a complete integrative view of those that we do know. This is hardly surprising though, as biology is a very dynamic field where we still often find new bits and pieces (and are often not very good in integrating the bits we find).

WB. That is actually inaccurate. Scientifically sperm and ovary cells are well alive, too. And ovaries have quite a significant live span. The problem really is (from a biological viewpoint) that we look at continuities here, whereas for practical purposes we have to set up arbitrary distinctions. The question is probably at which point shall we assume that something is legally a human rather than asking for the start of life. One should for instance consider that many successful conceptions terminate prematurely without ever being detected (except maybe by delayed period or stronger than usual periods). Even if initially successful spontaneous abortion rates are quite common, e.g. a reported 23% in one study after pregnancy was detected (see Steer et al. BMJ. 1989 November 25; 299(6711): 1317–1318.). So conception is not an automatism leading to a new human being. As such, slightly arbitrary but practical borders (as outlined in the OP) are needed.

If it is a common protcol in the lab I would recommend using one of the established protocols (most protocols are not universal, almost everyone tweaks it a little bit to make it work in a given lab). You can then ask questions ideally to people who have used it, but also feel free to post questions here. If you have to create an assay from the ground up I would recommend that you check out some manufacturers of comet assay kits. They provide more standardized procedures.

Bacteriophages are not alive to begin with, they have to be kept active. The problem there is pretty much similar to keeping enzymes active, for example. Major problems include inconsistent (i.e. insufficient information regarding) efficiency, the problem of administering self-replicating entities and uncertainty regarding their safety (as they may evolve). In Russia and/or Georgia tests have been done, but I have not heard anything that makes it (in its current form) a good alternative to antibiotics. Thoughts go into the direction of combo treatments (especially in cases with biofilm formation), but to my understanding it has not matured sufficiently.

The location or even the precise sequence of the MCR is quite irrelevant, they are constructed that each of the enzymes will cut only once. The more important question is how the overhang looks like for Sau3a looks like and search for compatible ends.

Check out the requirements of your primer. First, it has to hybridize with 20 bp. So the minimal length is 20. You do need to add a His-Tag on the C-terminus (which primer would that be?). So far you offered 3 bp for each primer only. In addition you may want to think about compatibility with the vector (though you can always blund-end ligate).