CharonY

Well it still is an antigen for all intents and purposes. It is just not necessarily in the original form as detected by the B cells (though sometimes it is).

Usually when talking about an enzyme the active form (i.e. holoenzyme) is meant. If referring to it as proteins it may be context-dependent whether the complete complex is meant. There may be overlaps when processes are discussed based on pure protein or genetic information.

Actually there are a couple more subtypes of t-cell types. I assume that the T-helper cell dependent activation of B-Cell is meant here, though. Regarding the receptor: they are different proteins (i.e. encoded by different genes) but can bind the same antigen. In addition, the B cell and T cell receptors usually bind to different epitopes (due to the mechanism of presentation) of the same antigen.

Yup indeed. Different areas in V1 have specialized to react to specific signals. Note that at this point every signal is transduced to action potential patterns. That is, the image the brain reconstructs is dependent on which brain areas got stimulated, rather than due to the nature of the signals themselves.

There is quite a large part known about that. Actually the processing starts almost immediately after the sensory cells before it even reaches the brain (though technically eyes are part of the brain, of course). A classical textbook example is the contrast enhancement by having lateral inhibition. So whatever reaches the primary visiual cortex is already partially processed. In the visual cortex the areas responsible for the detection of special patterns (as John mentioned) are located. The way how neural conncections can account for the signal modulationis quite fascinating and there is a whole lot around in regular textbooks. I am also pretty sure that there are also pretty good ones for laymen around, if you are interested.

Actually I would be surprised to find many overlaps in those areas. Companies sell drugs but epidemiological studies, safety evaluations etc. are not handled by them. They do perform clinicals according to rigid rules enforeced by the governement to demonstrate the safety of their products, but any additional studies are often done by universities national labs etc. Those do not make a penny out of the vaccines and in fact may promote their careers by quite a bit by finding a link. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAlso it should be noted that to date no one really knows what the mechanisms of autism are and what contributes to it. If you want an answer, invest more in research. However, clinging to something, just because no answer exists is a bit random, especially given the absence of direct evidence for a link. If parents were concerned about, say saccharin and do not want kids to ingest it anymore, it would be one thing. But denying vaccinations, which have a proven record of benefits, not only for the vaccinated individual but also for the rest of the population is quite another. Of course parents are concerned, but accepting the known risks of not being vaccinated (and potentially spreading the diseases further) just because they think there may be something is akin to stop wearing seatbelts because you think the chemicals in it may be deleterious to your health.

*cough* substrate level phosphorylation is ATP synthesis *cough*. It is just not respiration.

Fe3+ is not an electron donor, but an electron acceptor. During respiration it gets reduced to Fe2+. To understand the relevance you have to understand another thing about respiration. Its purpose is not only to generate energy, but also to regenerate NAD+ from NADH. In addition, there are other ways of gaining energy, as e.g. substrate level phosphorylation (look those terms up, if you are unsure what they mean). Now, if I recall correctly the hydrogenosomes do not possess ATP synthetases, which are required for energy production via respiration (and subsequent production of a proton gradient). However, they reduce H+ to hydrogen (hence their name) and thus take care of the electrons, while performing substrate level phosphorylation.

Well, one should keep in mind that there are in fact only a minuscule amount of vaccines out there, compared to what one is surrounded with. While pharma may benefit from trying to sell everything, the regulatory bodies usually only allow vaccinations into the market when there is a demonstrated need and if may increase health of the population (as opposed to individual health). Of these vaccines only a few actually become mandatory.

Letters usually are very short. Depending on journal I have seen as little as one page. Usually length is not the real criterion but rather if one can substantiate ones claims.

Normally when someone says that a molecule is large they refer to its molecular weight.

Chances are that your paperwork is just being on someones desk. If the one immediately responsible asks you to wait it is better to do so. Depending on company size it is rather unlikely that the CEO will actually look at your application or interfere with the selection of those directly involved. He/she is probably just having higher priorities elsewhere. Depending on whether a rough time has been outlined wait for a while and do not pester them. I understand you may be anxious and that it is "tough" for you, but you have to see that from their point of view. Most likely you are not too high up their priority list (and you can bet on them being busy). Just look at the flipside it is unlikely that they want to go through the whole ordeal of starting another interview round. Of course there may have been another applicant that they want to evaluate before getting back to you (depends really on the process and I am only guessing).

You could do that with bacteria rather than plants. Also plants use capillary forces to move liquids. Finally, the suggestions are pretty much sci-fi at this point. We are limited by the known biology and not only that genetic engineering rarely does allow the transfer of complex traits from one organism to another. Small things like individual biochemcial pathways may work, though they often interfere with the evolved regulatory mechanisms of the organism in question and may lead to odd results. That is why the increase in productivity of bacterial fermentation has not made the expected quantum jump (as compared to traditional screening for high producers). What we can do is more in the smaller area, but we are still building up the foundation for the understanding of the complex regulatory mechanisms.

Actually it is the inverse, the stimuli arriving from the senses also delivers signal brain areas not normally involved in the primary analysis of the signals.

If I recall correctly all organisms with hydrogenosomes are anaerobic (I am less sure whether some may be facultative, though). So they do not breathe oxygen. Note that respiration does not necessary equals the use of oxygen as electron donor and that some (especially those in the field) often refer to respiration of any sort as breathing in am informal way.

Before delving deeper into the matter I should point out that you appear to confuse the production of nutrients (as e.g. C or N fixation) with energy production (i.e. ATP production). This are two separate processes. In hydrogenomsomes are, similar to mitochondria, involved in energy production. They do not create food.

Unfortunately we do not provide direct answers to question. However, this is basically a simple puzzle in which you have to reconstruct the whole fragment by knowing that each of the provided pieces will be flanked by either restriction site.

MCS are necessary to a) place the gene in a specific area, which is important for subsequent analyses as e.g. sequencing reactions, b) provide a large number of unique enzyme cutting sites to provide versatility to your cloning reaction and c) as Greippi mentioned, allow counter selection. This may happen, but with puc18 vectors you try to gene expression. As the MCS is not "flush" with the ORF, either nothing or garbage gets produced. If you really want expression you go for (over)expression plasmids. Without an MCS you are very limited in the way you have to create your fragments.

Acetate is the endproduct of a number of oxidation processes from a variety of carbon sources. They essentially use what others cannot.

From my memory major issues were low yield and the cost for the whole process (including purification). I would have to dig out the data for more details, but I am not sure whether it has already been published yet.

In addition, much of what the layman gets presented by regular information sources often does not represent the actual scientific knowledge and debate.

Well if you are talking about acacdemic funding from the industrial partners, then this is yet another issue. There is a love-hate relationship there (especially in the biomed field). Of course in the UK it may be different, but at least from what I have heard I would be surprised if it is in any country.

The hyphens just indicate that the DNA sequences continues from there....

All organisms need to consume certain elements to survive and grow. Metal reducers, for instance often utilize acetate as carbon source as well as electron donor, but it really depends on the bug and the environment they live in. But they require all the other nutrients as all other organisms. Dissimilatory metal reduction is just a way to gain energy. Biomass has to come from somewhere else.

Actually it is probably a bit of a false dichotomy. The main route is in theory the industrial one, whereas the academic is more the odd one out. The reasons are well known and include the limited positions available. And more funding won't do a bit, to ameliorate that as traditionally it results in the established groups being better funded rather than creating new ones. In good times roughly 20-25 % of PhDs have any hope to obtain a tenured position. In fact academia is a high-risk track with high rewards if you love the academic settings and low rewards if you focus on the tangibles. Now the question is whether industrial science is outsourced to a high degree. For that one has to be clear what PhDs actually do. I assume that there will large differences depending on the field, but from what I have seen in the biomedical field the majority that is getting outsourced is in the production area. What is increasingly happening is that PhDs have to spend more and more time on traveling rather just being domestic, but that is a general trend everywhere. In short, I have not yet seen strong indications that on the PhD level the industry is outsourcing in significant amounts, however the job market has become more international in general. On the flipside, non-limited academic positions have always been extraordinarily rare and was never something of a simple route to take. I think I am getting off-topic here, though.