CharonY

Motility refers to the ability to move around. Note that currently the 6 kingdom (three domain) classification is the most widely accepted classification system based on molecular data.

Ok, do you have two or more sequences and more importantly, what do you want to see?

I think you are underestimating the time and effort you need to do create and characterize pure culture. As a rule of thumb, characterizing one novel species is basically one paper. I know of some PhD students that manger to create roughly 3-4 pure cultures from soil samples, for instance. And they considered themselves lucky (there are attempts from water samples that have been going on for roughly 20 years). It is much more difficult than just a simple dilution plating and picking colonies. Creating pure novel pure cultures is definitely not something that you can do quickly. But if you want just to create a pure colony based on known species, just mix some well-known ones with distinct attributes and try to recreate a pure culture out of it.

Well, most of the time you would have some idea how similar they are. If you really have no clue, then I would just try common two common algorithms for each case.

There are certain things on your wish list that are mutually exclusive. Obviously if cure cultures of something exists, they are not unique anymore. Or do you want to isolate a pure culture of something? Well, that requires a huge lot of trial and error. Depending on the bacteria you may well be trying out media and culture conditions for a year or more before you really get something.

For instance. So basically the overall proteome profile (or at least subsets of it). There are a huge numbers of applications and methodologies. But the basis is that it involves monitoring the presence and often the (relative or absolute) abundance of a large set of proteins (i.e. the proteome). Biomarker is a special area, though I could rant all day about the problems.

It depends on what you want to see. Local alignments are superior in detecting local similarities and are generally better suited for sequences that are overall dissimilar but with smaller conserved areas. Global alignments are better at aligning larger stretches of sequences, however. Again, it depends a lot on the type of sequence you got (e.g. overall similarity) and what you want to see.

First part hits the nail on its head. The example (as described) does not appear to be proteomics workflow per se. It addresses the expression of a single protein whereas proteomics is generally referring the whole set of proteins (or rather as much as we can technically get).

Actually it is pretty much established that mitochondria and plastids are of bacterial origin. In addition to the DNA the presence of an additional membrane with bacteria-like lipid components are pretty much strong indicators. The point regarding the DNA is not that it is different from human (how could it?) but rather that the organization and genes are closer to bacterial ones. Thus, they encode (and hence, express) ribosomes that are bacterial in structure. However, the timing is not quite clear. I.e. whether the eukaryotic cell arose first and then internalized the bacteria, or whether the original host was a prokaryote itself.

Think about dynamics. What is more stable in short time frames, the proteome or the genome?

The answers as well as the question mix up two distinct elements. The first is nutrition uptake, e.g. the material required to generate biomass. This is what you would generally understand if you talk about consumption. The ability to rely purely on inorganic substances is called autotrophy. The inorganic source for carbon is, as shown in the first part of the OP, obtained by CO2 fixation. However, CO2 fixation requires energy. And here is the second part, some organisms can also rely on inorganic sources for energy production. The one you have heard most about is most likely photosynthesis (where the light reaction provides energy, whereas the CO2 fixation is light independent). In general most respiration (the mechanism that creates energy) requires reductions equivalents that are shuffled through a membrane system to create a proton gradient, which in turn, is used by an ATP synthetase to create energy (I will leave out fermentation here). Thus you essentially need an electron donor and and acceptor for the respiratory chain to work. If the donor is inorganic, (an example is e.g. oxidation of ammonia to nitrite) then it is referred to as lithotrophic. Note that in this case the inorganic substance is used as an electron donor, but is usually not consumed (i.e. internalized to build biomass) and can also (of course) not serve as a carbon source.

Actually mitochondria and plastids are endosymbionts, and it is not a nested symbiosis (for that the endosymbionts would have to carry other, smaller bacteria themselves). There are a lot of interesting symbiotic relationships around. For instance, Photorhabdus is a bug that is a symbiont to nematodes. The fun bit is that the nematode infects bugs, regurgitates the bacteria, those then kill the host, and both feast on the dead insect. Then, in the next cycle the next generation of nematodes takes Photorhabdus up again and searches for new prey.

As I_a said, under favorable conditions crystallization can occur within minutes. Do you have evaporation issues?

Well, eubacteria is not really used as a term anymore. But please go ahead and name us a few

I think the trainee position is actually paid. But it is based on hearsay, I just happened to run across someone working for the NHS. But You should just check the career pages of the NHS to get an idea.

Keeping cells alive with the incubator things that many offer is kind of tricky, regardless of the microscope, obviously. For the most part we rely on third-party software (as e.g. micromanager or use something that we write in Labview) to control the software, likewise for postprocessing (matlab, for example). The way we do it, is try to visit a lab that has it up and running and use our samples and do a simple experiment. In most cases it will be down to support and ergonomics, unless you got specialized application, as the optics part in all cases is pretty competitive.

Thing is, there is not really something like a real "scientist" position. At least not if you envision working in the lab a lot. With bachelor or master equivalent there are technician positions, which come closest to that point. There are sometimes staff scientists, which are kind of like technicians with more responsibilities, however in many cases they are temporary in nature, and usually require a PhD. Other than that one is expected to transform more to a kind of science manager rather than bench scientist. From your description it sounds like you are looking for a technician position requiring a MSc. In order to work in the NHS you need to have HPC approval, though (e.g. by working as a trainee first). Note that the last paragraph is based on second-hand information.

There was a nice experiment with jumping spiders (Portia sp., I think), in which they were allowed to see a prey within a three-dimensional maze (a bit like a tree-thing). They were able to more or less memorize the layout and maneuver through the labyrinth to get to the prey.

1 PCR 2 how would you define a full microsattelite map? Identification of all SSRs?

It is also a matter of amount of bacterial contamination as well as overall health status. If you are used to eating raw meat (and it is not totally rotten or too full of parasites) you have a better chance of not getting adverse health effects than someone not used to it. It remains a certain health hazard, though, like many things we used to do before we had tools to change things.

what cell types are you talking about? But in terms of top-of-the-line microscope for biological research Nikon, Zeiss, Leica and Olympus are usually the brands you end up with. At this level your precise application and their respective offering, as well as support is going to be more relevant than the brand per se.

Depends also a bit of on the cell types. For some, fibrinogen may actually reduce adhesion. But as mentioned, polylysine is commonly used. Also primary amines. Also, the type of coating can influence cell growth and morphology.

Just by looking at resistance profiles it is pretty much impossible to ascertain the source with any measure of accuracy. Or in other words, the resistance profile alone is a poor predictor.

The haploid human genome has around 3 gigabases, but it is not a single molecule. Rather, it is distributed to 23 chromosomes.

Well, I am pretty sure that it is being mentioned in several reviews. However, this is more of a common knowledge thing, considering the large efforts that are still required to obtain structural information (even inaccurate ones). The mantra of computational modelers in this area tend to be "gimme a target, gimme target". Note that the problems are mostly on the biological side (e.g. receptors). The reason is their intrinsic complexity that it takes huge efforts and time to gain structural information from proteins. Now, considering that the analysis of an 1:1 interaction is already tricky, you can imagine how big of a pain it is to model more interaction (and how impossible it gets if you consider how few structures in the end we got). Even worse, understanding the outcome of interactions requires even more biological knowledge that, to a big part, is still lacking, which would help in prioritizing targets. This again is, in my opinion, related to the fact that most funding goes into the direct drug target identification, but less is invested in trying to understand fundamental cellular processes, but I digress.