CharonY

The poverty line may be skewed upwards in the US (as compared to a number of European countries) due to the high income of the super-rich. This may lead to over-estimation of poverty. However, in addition to the already mentioned fallacies regarding the presence of amenities, there is also the additional factor of high houusehold debt, which may have helped financing things like cars and TVs (items that are not already included in standard apartments). Looking carefully over the data will be required for real comparative measures, however the presented data is clearly insufficient to declare (as has been in the sig and a number of posts) that the US poor are extremely well off, or that there are no (or very few poor) at all.

In many style guides you will find that the active voice is recommended (certainly in grant proposals). In the end, it does not really matter as clarity is the main priority. That being said, in most papers that I have read (or written) the active form is more usual with a pronoun to indicate things that have been done. E.g. "we assumed that to be the case and we did that and that to test this hypothesis". Note that "Consider XXX" is very distinct from "We conisder XXX". The latter is what you did (or started off with) the first is a more general theoretical consideration of a given problem. There are not many single-authors in my field (almost exclusively reviews), but those that were usually use "I". However, many feel awkward doing so. In any case, it is rare that reviewers or editors get hung upon language, as long as it is clear. PS: Gebärmutter is female in German.

Depends on the size, really. However, genomic DNA even from bacteria (a few megabases) often show degradation effects from as little as 2-3 freeze-thaw cycles.

First regarding Gel quality: 3h is usually awfully long. What kind of gel is it? Minigels should not take longer than about 30 mins. With a longer run you can have buffer depletion effects if the reservoir is not large enough. This often results in smears in the high-MW areas. This appears to have happened in your case as the low MW bands look better. What is the total volume of running buffer? Also I assume you used 0.5x TBE (i.e. 1:10 dilution of a 5x stock) and not 0.5% TBE? Regarding undigested plasmids: the size assessment is only accurate for linear DNA as the confirmation (CCC, OC, linear, etc,) affects electrophoretic mobility. Therefore undigested, non-sheared plasmids will always run faster than linear DNA of similar size. However, I cannot really tell you why the linear fragments do not fit the sizes, though. First thing I would do is to verify the correct electrophoresis conditions (including correct buffer composition and strength). For such a long run either use more volume or maybe try up to 1x solution. After you verified that the under the given condition at least the ladder looks perfect, start worrying about the fragment sizes.

Basically yes, as each PCR reaction is different from the other (i.e. different primer/template combo). Sometimes people also just compare the measure value of a sample of interest against a single reference point for a semi-quantitative analysis. However, the danger is that one may be outside the dynamic range.

Ok, I had problems with as together with your previous post it implied that NT are also capable of creating AP in the presynaptic cell. This is normally not the case. The last post is accurate, however (an, to me, oddly different from what you posted earlier). To summarize synaptic events are polarized, and also normal AP event along axons as they are generally generated at the soma and due to the ion channel kinetics it can only proceed in one direction. I.e. we have directionality within as well as between cells.

The one-chiild policy is not a recent thing. It has been enacted since the late 70s to early 80s. In fact, there have been recent discussions to weaken or get rid of it.

Now this is rather non-canonical. I still wonder, how does presynaptic AP generation by their own NT work? Also, do you mean that within a neuron the AP movement is normally bi-directional (e.g. if we disregard the synaptic cleft)?

What, precisely, do you think neurotransmitter are, and what is their role?

The reason why AP travel in a specific direction is due to the kinetics of the involved ion channels. Once they they have activated, they do not react for a given time (refractory period). This prevents the AP running into the opposite direction. However, if you stimulate the middle of the axon, for example, the channels in both directions can be opened. Hence, from the depolarized area the AP can move into both directions. Neurotransmitter are only relevant to eventually create AP in the postsynaptic cell.

Algae in this context is usually used as a catch-all phrase which includes cyanobacteria.

Actually, part-time work for kids between 14-16 is not that unusual and is imo a rather good idea to give them a first taste of real life, provided the workload does not impact on their time to get education.

I agree, the language was a bit inaccurate in that sentence.

Profitability (or lack thereof) is still one of the biggest issues. The yield per dollar is still too low and quite some funding has been pulled out of that area because of this (and other issues).

I assume you mean lac promoter (the whole operon is not needed and lacI is often provided by the host strain)? IPTG induces the lac operator, acting as a lactose-analog (essentially by binding to the lac repressor). The induction with IPTG is dependent on the host strain. The trick here is the use of the T7 promoter. In order to express the gene insert under control of the T7 promoter, the viral T7 RNA polymerase has to be present. This is done by having a host strain carrying it. If the T7 RNA polymerase is under control of a lac promoter, but is repressed by LacI, IPTG would induce T7 polymerase expression, which in turns results in expression of the insert in the plasmid. Thus, the control of induction is not directly done by cis acting elements on the plasmid, but relies on a compatible host strain.

Are you sure that they refer to genome hybridization and not e.g. 16S similarity?

one has to keep in mind that the term evolution in different contexts mean different things. In biology, it refers to the change of allele frequencies over time. As such, it does not cover the rise of self-replicating molecules. In the strictest sense, it does not even cover all self-replicating molecules per se as the narrow definition is tied to DNA-based replicating systems (including all known life forms and mobile genetic elements). Again, one could try to broaden the definition, but the correct context has to be given.

Yes. What about coffee?

AFAIK regulations stipulate that natural products are extracts from natural sources. However, salt and sugar are generally not regulated. Regulation-wise it may be a grey area. Outside of regulatory rules, they would be considered artificial, though.

Good point about not using the autoclave alone.

Modifying bacteria in order to make them more susceptible to bacteriocidal agents is pretty much working backwards. And yes, getting rid of spores is even tricky with physical means (including being safe from viruses. A number of bacteriophages are pretty resilient, too (just ask a lab with a P1 infestation). Though usually not as much as spores.One could have spores with phages added to the mix though. In any case, use of viruses is impractical overall.

Cap, foil or something similar similar is usually needed to maintain sterility of the tubes once you take them out. Do not close them off airtight, though.

1) If you prepare things for immediate measurement, they easily water soluble (but not stable if stored in it). Ideally you should use the same buffer as you are going to use for your real sample for Bradford. 2) If 4.12g are 20,000 U how much g corresponds to 1U? You should use a buffer that ensure DNAseI activity. A common one is Tris pH 7.6 with MgCl2 and CaCl2 (2.5 and 0.5 mM if I recall correctly). For storage, however Tris with 50% glycerol and CaCl2 is generally used.

I have not read the paper, however based on the description above it appears that synaptic plasticity appears to be affected (as e.g. by establishing persistent LTP or suchalikes) rather than cell viability. The latter of which would be, to my knowledge, rather unusual.

Nature has its ups and downs. I would consider it mainly a bio journal, though. At least much in it is not rigorous enough for pure bio, but have some sexy stuff (often interdisciplinary) to sell it. I assume due to its format, about any discipline has something to complain about Nature (or, for that matter, Science). Formats of papers (whether it includes a long or short intro, discussion or not, numbering, etc.) are outlined by each journal, so that is usually the first thing to check. However, it is impossible to write a decent paper without knowing the background of the topic (and thus knowing what is the novel aspect of ones own work).