CharonY

Was the medium prepared anaerobically and is a redox indicator included? The amount of cells is suspicious for only two days of pure anaerobic growth. Unless the starting titer was very high (which would not be ideal for these kind of tests). Also, was sufficient agar in there?

That is partially wrong and partially inaccurate. All organisms have certain limits to their pH tolerance. Not all algae (which are plants) are low pH tolerant, not all bacteria (such as cyanobacteria) are pH sensitive. What is true is that the physiology of both organisms are so different that one would not expect large similarity in their physiology. Bacteria as well as plant cells have cell walls, which are chemically and structurally very different. The presence of either does not automatically confer pH resistance, though. This is down to other mechanisms but may (in bacteria) also rely on modifications of the outer cell surface.

Well depends on the resolution and type of the gel as well as size of the protein. If you are in a very well resolved range it could be possible to see a shift.

Basically all permeabilization and fixation methods put stress on cells. The composition of the solution and the resilience of the cells varies somewhat, though.

Well, detection of viruses is normally either PCR or antibody based. I.e. antibodies that the immune system raises against the virus. Direct detection of the virus protein in body fluids while technically possible tends to give relative weak signals. Based on that one could of course change the binding regions of the primers, although they are of course designed to match conserved areas, which, in turn, are generally necessary (and therefore conserved). The major problem is that luckily there is no easy way to rationally improve virulence based on structure (yet).

Well, since scientists don't make money with their publications, it is a non-issue. Quite the opposite, really. The more exposure, the better. The journals may complain, though. However, there are always open-access journals or you can just link the article (which would be a bit limiting).

It is more of a taxonomical convention. For instance, names above the genus level are usually not italicized. Same for genes (non-capital, italics) protein (capital, non-italic). Edit, this is only the case for prokaryotic gene symbols. For eukaryotic gene labels it is customary to have it italicized but the first or sometimes all letter are upper case (for the WT).

On the other hand, explaining an interesting paper in a simple way is a good training. The question is then whether there would be any interest. Or whether a blog would be a better medium, for instance.

I agree with ajb. Considering that it takes time I think it would be very tricky. However, if it works out, it would be very interesting, too.

I don't know the quote but it can be interpreted easily. I would argue that biology is far more complex than most of astrophysics, for which a lot of number of explanatory models exist. Not knowing them, expresses ignorance (the knowledge is there, but you may be unaware of it). Biological knowledge is very much fragmented with enormous gaps, due to its complexity. There are no good mathematical models for most of it. Most biologist know a lot about not knowing something. Edit: did not see the second page. Bleh.

Right, I forgot about typewriters. Good thing they phased out during my undergrad times (well before thesis writing times, luckily).

IIRC the duet vectors are routinely used for multiple co-expression, so as long as you use a host strain that is compatible to both plasmids, you shold be fine. Novagen also sold at least one of those. Novablue or something like that. Other strains include B834 and/or Bl21 derivatives, I think. But better check that out, as my recollection is a bit hazy on that.

Just to add, underlining is generally only used if written by hand.

It is important to understand that there are at least two different variables. One the total elements within a population. This constitutes the complete genetic variability, i.e. all variations of all genes, for example. The second is their respective occurrence (frequency) within a population. Mutation, for instance, may add a new variant of a gene into the pool, thus enhancing the overall variance of the gene pool, when it appears. However the overall composition of the pool will hardly change as at the time of the mutation only one individual carries it. With no natural selection acting on it, the likelihood is very high that the mutation vanishes within a few generations. If it there is high selective pressure to keep this novel allele, it can spread, thus increasing its frequency. The overall gene pool composition (i.e. frequency of each allele) will then significantly alter over time.

You have to be careful to differentiate between mechanisms that increase variability in the gene pool and those that change the composition. Roughly speaking natural selection and drift belong to the latter, mutations and recombinations to the former.

Standard rant: Craig Venter did not create a new species. Just re-inserted the same information back into an existing cell. The only novel bit was that the DNA was synthesized in vitro. The sequence was the original ones minus some deletions.

Lamarck and Darwin were not on opposite ends. Darwin was not sure which was the true mode of inheritance, his main contribution is the introduction of natural selection. He did not specify precisely the mode of inheritance. In fact, he did state that Lamarckian inheritance could also have played a role in that system. An apt comparison would be Mendel vs Lamarck. And who the heck thinks Lamarck is a villain of any sort? Hyperbole much?

Overall, the likelihood is exceedingly low. First, it is usually only transmitted zoonotically and almost always only by direct contact with saliva. Inhalation as infection source is exceedingly rare. Second, it is not endemic in human populations, highly limiting its potential to spread to significant parts of the population.

Considering that we are having a lot of troubles of validating biomarkers for about anything, trying to associate weak linkages of certain sub-populations with something as complex as e.g. intelligence is a rather ungrateful endeavor. Also, the basketball coach would determine suitability according to actual size, not due to genetic markers. Even if genetic markers are known, the size prediction is going to be less accurate than, say,actually measuring the size. In cases of pygmies there is definitely a strong genetic component and clearly identifying these could be a good predictor of size. Nonetheless, it also depends on how homogenous the population is, which usually correlates somewhat with degree of isolation. Note that genetic disposition does not necessarily equal the phenotype. Also note that phenotypes are not easily linked to a certain genetic make-up. At best there are strong correlations (but rarely with a mechanistic linkage).

I am pretty sure that carbon cages are meant and not diamonds. I.e. fullerenes or derivatives thereof that have surface modifications that enhance binding and uptake by cancer cells coupled to a drug payload. However, they basically increase the affinity towards cancer cells relative to healthy cells, but it does not mean that they do not affect healthy cells at all. You may want to google targeted drug delivery for details.

This is a bloody old thread. Note that for the effective use of grass or wood as food source for higher eukaryotes (including arthropods) a consortium of bacteria and protists are involved.

Well, the phenol extraction step is used to get rid of proteins. Another, longer, way to do it is to do protease digest and salt it out. For the latter NaCl also works. Other, non-chemical methods include the use of filters or dialysis and affinity columns.

Eh, just realized, if you are more interested in joining a group as opposed to leading one, not getting a PhD would be much better. This included e.g. analyst and technician positions (both in- and outside academia).

I know only a handful of people working in pharma companies personally, but it appears that they have mostly pharmacist rather than MDs involved in drug design. The ones I know of do the clinicals. Drug design in uni setting is somewhat different from pharmaceutical companies. Usually, the majority of the development money goes into the trials rather than into drug research. Also basic drug design is done only to a more limited extent within the big pharmas. Pandering to what one believe is ones strength can be dangerous if too narrowly defined. At the undergrad level (and to some extent this also goes for the grad and postdoc level) the perspective on the actual job be too narrow to be able to actually judge where ones strength may be. Also, if the interest is strong enough one is bound to become good at it. One has to realize that the actual job later on may require a completely different skill set than acquired in grad school, however.