CharonY

Yet, we happily serve as vessels for bacteria. And if they are unhappy we get all kind of conditions, ranging from acne to diarrhea to worse things. We clearly dominate those little bastards. Also good luck with maintaining decent nitrogen and carbon cycles without them. Or any kind of ecosystem, for that matter.

HIV, maybe. Vaccines may become a reality (even if they do not offer perfect protection), and currently the progression of the resulting disease is relatively well controlled. Universal virus cure is very hypothetical at this point. It works in culture (afaik) but it is a big difference to have real clinical value. Schizophrenia: not a chance. We do not even have established a foundation of what it comprises of. Cancer has similar issues. Also, as they are not not diseases caused by an identifiable external agent (usually) but most likely due to normal bodily functions plus confounding factors, a remedy does appear highly unlikely. It is not that that we can simply remove something foreign from the body (such as a virus or bacterium) and suddenly turn healthy. Regarding genomics, there are gazillions of bioinformatical approaches used to investigate genomes. However, the real stumbling block is less the bioinformatics tools, but the biological knowledge on which they are built on. Or knowledge on some very basic aspects are lacking. Or rather, our total knowledge, while impressive, is still but a drop in the ocean of biological complexity. Biofinromatics can e.g. help us search or predict patterns, but they do not tell us what the biological consequences of these patterns might be.

The problem with controlling stuff via EEG is that it is still relatively crude. Details such as words are not possible to decipher from the information you can currently got. But something like movement or facial expression can be read out and used to translate into a simple control interface, such as mouse movements, for examples. One of the examples is this here My link and OCZ had also a relatively cheap version.

In short, they made a metagenome project and among the sequences they found gene homologs that looked very distinct from available sequences. The big question is whether this is due to the fact that these differences are due to low relatedness to known organisms, or whether it just means that we have not explored sufficient genomes yet. The dark matter alludes to the assumption that (if they really are a distinct domain) these organisms are unknown until now. One possible source are giant viruses and they were some studies that alluded that they belong to a very old lineage (which includes the paper mentioned in the OP as well as another from a French group under Raoult late 2010). However, subsequent studies (Williams et al 2011, also in Plos One) using different evolutionary models indicate that there is really little evidence hinting at a fourth domain based on these viruses. My personal take is also on the conservative side and I do not think that the experimental evidence is currently strong enough.

That is historically correct, however, note that it is not a mechanism per se, but used to describe events at a given level. Events that span several gene pools as e.g. the split of species can be referred to as macroevolution. Or the investigation of divergence in different species. However it is not quite correct to say that macroevolution leads to speciation. The molecular mechanisms are essentially the same for macro and microevolution, just the viewpoint (and timescale) of investigation is different.

A macro lens would be really useful for that.

Well there are antiviral thiol-compounds, however IIRC they contain metals (which ultimately are responsible for inactivating viruses). The main point to remember is that viruses do not have a metabolism that could be disrupted, as such antiviral agents either harm the viral particles in some way (e.g. denaturation of the protein, oxidative damage etc.) or target infected host cells. Outside of hosts viruses tend to be relatively fragile as the protein hull is basically the only thing that protects their genetic material.

Paraffin, wax and similar coatings delay blood clotting (but does not prevent it completely).

This is because not all organism are pathogenic all the time. With a functioning immune system and a healthy flora many of these are harmless. Only once something happens to upset this (e.g. some other infections, weakening of the immune system etc.) do they start to become harmful.

That is precisely the point. The hypothesis that certain areas have to be stimulated in a very specific way is most likely false (or at least there is no support for it). However, the big question is what placebo really is. It is an effect, as it has physiological consequences. More likely placebo may actually be a variety of mechanisms, and lumping them in a common catch phrase may actually make it harder to precisely define it.

Ah, in that case it really looks like salt contamination of sorts. If the buffer already has different conductivity it is a source of concern.

Most likely it refers to the analysis of protein expression under different conditions. E.g. a cell line under normal conditions (whatever is defined as normal) and the same cell line exposed to some kind of stimulus. Or a comparison of wild-type to mutant. The test then shows whether the protein(s) under investigation are expressed at different levels and are hence affected in their regulation by the stimulus/mutation.

Moreover many animals including crows, monkeys and apes show culture (i.e. transmitting learned things from generation to generation). The assumption that humans are somehow special compared to other animals is based on an anthropocentric view, rather than on hard data. Not to mention the general problem in defining what consciousness is at all. How can we test other species when we are not sure of the mechanism in ourselves? Finally, regarding instincts. It is unfortunately a word that has been heavily misused. In the simplest sense it refers to innate behavioral pattern. However, almost all animals show the ability to learn. Except for very simple organisms their behavior is clearly not only instinctive.

Not that many good ones, unfortunately. At least to my limited knowledge. I dabble into these matters every now and then as I found it quite interesting, but have not found any definite studies. Also much less that delves into the fundamentals of stress or pain perception. Or rather there is a lot, but there is a knowledge gap between mechanisms (also on the neuronal level) to the perception part, on which placebo (or whatever) could work. It is another typical case of insufficient biological knowledge to allow definite answers.

It is quite possible, even likely that the placebo effect plays a role. The original theories behind it are clearly non-scientific (or at least have to my knowledge not put into a modern model with explanatory powers yet). The problem with these uses (pain control, sleep, etc.) are highly affected by the placebo effect. A quick overview of the published papers with trials showed that the placebo effect was mostly not accounted for (e.g. Chen et al Int J Nurs Stud. 2012 Mar 3). In at least one case acupressure was only simulated by touching rather then massaging ( J Midwifery Womens Health. 2012 Mar;57(2):133-8). But if te placebo is due to general massaging (and associated prolonged contact), it would still be an insufficient control. Finally a short study showed that acupressure, placebot-acupressure and relaxation CDs had similar effects for stress reduction: (McFadden et al. Complementary Therapies in Medicine Volume 20, Issue 4, August 2012, Pages 175–182). As a general note, the complexity of pain, stress etc. makes it really difficult to distinguish "placebo" from "real" effects. If lying down relaxes you and thus reduces pain sensation, is that a placebo or successful intervention?

That is a very generic phrase. It essentially mean proteins being expressed at different levels. It can apply to all kind of different contexts, i.e. without further info it is virtually impossible to discuss it more.

Yeah, sounds like there is still stuff on it. Is the backpressure ok? Otherwise I would rinse it with several more column volumes of water and check whether baseline (I assume UV in your case?) is stable (as well as pH). If the contamination are precipitated proteins (as e.g. indicated by random UV signal) or lipids, additional wash steps might be necessary. This may include protease treatments or, in case of lipids and hydrophobic proteins, washes with compatible mild organic solvents (often ethanol/isopropanol).

IIRC it is a pBR322 derivative with nothing terribly fancy. As such Top and DH5alpha should both be fine. Main differences are found in the methylation/restriction systems (and recombination apparatus).

Well, technically yes. I never really used the Lancefield classification (as I come from the molecular side). Technically the Lancefield system groups are based on the detection of specific carbohydrates in the cell wall, not on their hemolytic activities. While it was supposed to classifiy streptococci, though some misclassifications (i.e. the mentioned enterococci) occured. In any case the D group are generally alpha or gamma, using the hemolysis system. I.e. these are two unrelated classfication systems that look at different properties. Also the name of the researcher is Rebecca Lancefield. Not lance field.

Unfortunately especially in academic settings this is what you get when you follow your interests rather than market demands (and trying to figure out the demand in academia is pretty much a networking exercise). But yeah, job prospects (esp. in academia) are generally not good with a kind of limbo state between graduation until the time where you can actually settle down somewhere (often close to the 40s and above, depending on the academic system). Also, you seem to be in the same spot/mood as every (non-naive) postdoc is going through. Or at least those that are not heavily promoted by prestigious advisers.

IIRC Lancefield Ds are weakly to non-hemolytic.

Also in addition to having ruined your clothes, they will also smell nicely of stuff that has been autoclaved. Especially nice if the autoclave is also used for inactivating bacterial cultures.

One problem with organic agriculture is the precise definition of what is allowed under this label and what not. For instance, pesticide use is allowed although many (but apparently not all) synthetic ones are banned. Health effects are incredibly hard to assess and it is usually not possible to de-convolute effects of food and exposure from other parameters that affect health.There are (contested studies) that look at the effect of certain types of organic agriculture on biodiversity and sustainability, for instance (e.g. Maeder et al 2002, Science). However it appears that more data is needed to draw conclusions. The results vary quite a bit depending on landscapes (see Wingqist 2011 J Appl Ecol), the scale used for assessment (see e.g. Gabriel et al 2010 Ecological Lett, IIRC) and environmental conditions (e.g. droughts). Then some proposed to re-introduce certain principles to modern agriculture in order to increase efficiency. In short, again a case of complex problem and no simple answers, confounded by the way the "organic" is actually implemented.

What is the difference between an active and an inactive metabolite?

The null is not clearly formulated. I.e. what is meant by "same"? From the way you described the experiment and the respective statistical tests it appears that you formulated three nulls (i.e. one for each concentration). In each case the null would be that at the tested concentrations (let us call it c1, c2 and c3) the compounds x&y have no effect on z. In other words, each test requires its own null. Alternatively, one could apply statistical tests that account for more than one group (e.g. ANOVA). Thus, the null with c1 and c2 cannot be rejected (i.e. we do not know whether it has or not). Whereas the null with c3 can be rejected. I.e. at c3 there is a significant effect on z. As already mentioned, a null is never accepted, we either reject, or fail to reject.