CharonY

This is an important point. Improvements for the sake of improvement are note marketable. They must also provide incentives for the buyers to want them. If consumers are more interested in price rather than durability for certain products, innovations will flow into that area. Also, many innovations are also made that are not visible in the end product, e.g. more efficient production. Innovations do not happen in a vacuum, ultimately, someone has to pay for them to be made (and more often than not it is a money sink).

In fact, not only the sequence is of relevance. The DNA molecule as a whole possesses a very dynamic structure (which is kind of expected due to the fact that it is a lot of activity is going on there), and that this also has very important impacts on e.g. cell regulation. So there are huge chunks of knowledge still missing all around.

Not in nature. Agrobacterium essentially forces the plant to produce nutrients that it can use. This has been exploited for biotechnological use. But as I said, the bacterium uses this trick to feed on the plant.

There is basically no advantage for the plant. It is mostly a parasitic interaction.

Under non-denaturing conditions (i.e. not SDS) the capsid will not be of the same size as a the unprocessed polyprotein (electrophoretic mobility is quite different). Under denaturing conditions you will see the subunits.

Think about the following: What compounds participate in the reaction? Could there be a limiting element? Also look up enzyme kinetics.

The fusion is done on the DNA level. I.e. you basically attach the gfp gene in-frame to your protein of interest, for example (details vary depending on what you want to get at the end).

The individual effects vary wildly, I do not get any withdrawal symptoms, for example, although I am a heavy drinker. But then I do not seem get the benefit of it, either. If I cannot find a coffee with a good taste, I do not bother drinking and have as of yet not noticed any signs of withdrawals when I did so. The effects are usually only very short in duration, as caffeine gets cleared rather quickly and (so far) has not shown to result in lasting effects (e.g. irreversible changes in receptor counts) afaik. Also to nitpick, there are tissues that are not heavily vascularized and as such do not really bleed when damaged. Also it depends largely on how much and where you cut whether you severe vessels. And finally, depending on the definition, blood itself is a tissue. But again, these are matters of definition.

The problem with these high-dimensional approaches is that false positive discoveries go up with the number of hypotheses (here: loci) being tested. I have the feeling that without more biological information most of these non-hypothesis driven approaches are shots in the dark. Throughput alone will not give the answer.

Actually, pain reception or bleeding are not terribly good indicators to distinguish living and dead tissue. But aside from that there are studies showing beneficial effects of moderate coffee intake. I do not remember whether they were specifically tied to caffeine but also (more likely) related to other components found in coffee. As everything else, a too high intake of caffeine is harmful. However, it is cleared from the body relatively quickly, so that long-term addiction are unlikely (though psychological effects are quite possible).

Just to nitpick, anatomy generally refers to higher organisation of multicellular organisms. The more often used term in this context would be cellular organization. To your questions Not all bacterial genomes are organized that way. That being said, the vast majority of known bacteria have a single chromosome, that can be coiled differently depending on activity (chromsomes can show quite a degree of organizational structures). But in most cases they are circular. Some bacteria (such as e.g. rhizobia) have several chromsomes. Some really are classified as megaplasmids, though. The distinction between really big plasmids and chromosomes can be a bit blurry and is often made according to whether they are essential. In addition, some bacteria (e.g. Agrobacterium) also have also linear chromsomes (usually in addition to circular ones, but there are exceptions like Borrelia). Many bacterial species are almost always found with plasmids. In the end, it can be species, or even strain-specific. AFAIK all rhizobia possess plasmids on which their ability to induce root nodules are coded, for instance. The copy number of a given plasmid in single cell can vary a lot. Megaplasmids are often present in one copy, whereas high copy plasmids can go over 1000 copies (though it is very rare in naturally occuring plasmids). Plasmids, are normally double-stranded. They form singl-stranded intermediates during replication, for instance. As source I would recommend any good microbial genetics or microbial cell biology text book. They usually have very good illustriations that you may be interested in.

So am i correct in the assumption that what you really discuss are your personal experiences and opinions? Regardless how often they may be repeated or with which detail they are regurgitated, they will not be elevated to scientifically relevant data.

Precisely. Same goes for all other organisms that change their local environments to accommodate their lifestyle.

one possibility, though it usually is not a smear, unless you expect many bands (that are badly resolved in the wrongly concentrated gel).

Actually you are already halfway through the correct answer. In short, it is the distinction between naturally occuring and codogenic (or proteinogenic) amino acids. Sometimes they are used interchangeably (wrongly imo).

Taxonomically the answer would be members of the order of carnivora. Note that this group is based on phylogeny, and not really diet. In common use or in non-taxonomical use, it can usually refers to an organism that feeds on animals.

Not irrelevant as it an important component of population development, obviously. But regarding the OP I would think that a lot of influence of human actions on changing ecological systems are evident, however a) earth as a whole ecosystem is anything but fragile. If it was it would have not survived the massive changes in its system during its history. Almost any scenario with the demise of the earth due to human action would be a very anthropocentric viewpoint.

There may be trillions of reasons and this gives not enough information to do any troubleshooting. Basically each component or wrong application of the technique (amples, probes, gel, blot, hybridization, signal detection) can lead to streaking.

Putting a large amount of foreign objects into your bloodstream, especially living organisms is an patently silly idea. Akin to load up your stomach with blunt knives (you know, just not to cut yourself) in order to help digesting large whole-swallowed chunks of food because, you know, chewing is so boring.

Unfortunately I only familiar with setting up labs in academic settings (in which rules apply that may or may not be required for private labs). For general laboratory safety regulations you may want to look at OSHA and see if it applies, also the information from CDC may be relevant. For specific information you may want to see guidance from the A2LA.

Well, to be fair, all biochemical reactions are stochastic to some extent, depending on a variety of factors. But the OP is using probability in a different context, of course. Also note that selective factors significantly shape the probability landscape. Moreover one has to consider that these reactions did not happen one after the other, but an enormous amount of reactions were happening all around the earth simultaneously. And still it too a few billion years before the first life arose.

An interesting article that touches on many aspects of the famine in the Horn of Africa http://english.aljaz...8844125460.html

Research in abiogenesis is most likely to focus on reproducing the conditions in laboratory conditions rather than looking for it in nature. Even if there were organic molecules that may have been precursors of life, they would be rapidly utilized by the lifeforms that exist now. Thus, the likelihood of abiogenesis still to occur is extremely low.

I think the most costly aspect in addition to the usual lab equipment may be a suitable location to set the lab up and, if needed, to make changes. Costs that come up in addition to the pure lab things (that I presume you are familiar with) include the accreditation itself, of course, compliance with biosafety regulations, waste disposal, to name a few aspects. I am not familiar with the detailed requirements and do not know how much it differs from a standard non-accredited test lab, though. It is kind of strange that you have to set up a lab out of your pocked for a job, though.

So, you are saying that the advice should include time-travelling instructions?