CharonY

Incidentally it does not only scale with the amount of proteins but is also largely dependent on composition. The assay is not that accurate for complex protein mixtures (no existing assays are, btw.). Ideally you would always make your calibration curve with the protein or protein mix of interest, but this is rarely done. In the end you will always have to live with a certain margin of error.

Proteases are not activated by cell lysis, however outside the regulated environment of a cell the proteases can degrade without check everything you got in your vial, plus you can introduce additional ones by contamination. Whether you need an inhibitor depends largely on the extraction method used.

Nah, it may be a bit hard to figure out. So here is the answer: Long DNA molecules are mechanically unstable. If insufficient precautions are taken normal liquid handling alone is usually sufficient to shear it. So what you see is that the chromosomal DNA has been sheared (plus, depending on the extraction protocol other forms of degradation may have occured). So what you see is a broad distribution of lots and lots of different chromosomal DNA fragments with the intact one being somewhere on top.

There are lots of anaerobic respiration pathways that bacteria used before oxygen emerged.

I would refer you to some neurobiology textbooks. There was an older, very well written one, but for some reasons I cannot recall the author. Hmm brain getting old. edit: Geez can't believe I forgot his name. Eric Kandel.

This is equivalent to each other. Both are concentration determinations. You can calculate from the molarity to the weight, if you know the MW of the protein, of course. What you cannot do is calculate the MW of an unknown protein. For that you would have to weight in your protein (i.e. your calibration curve is then based on mg/ml) but then you cannot calculate the moles (again, if the composition of the protein is unknown).

It is a trick question (of sorts). If the DNA was whole, you would essentially see a more or less defined band at the very top of the gel. It would not move much due to the size. Also, no marker would help you at that size (just keep in mind that we are talking about whole chromosomal DNA here). But I suppose you may be seeing more a less a smear from top to bottom rather than defined bands. What do you think this could be?

If you want to go into the private sector in computer engineering, a PhD is usually not that useful. Getting into a company as soon as possible usually sets you onto a better trajectory for a further career. From what you have written real life job experience would be more beneficial.

It is not the frequency, but more a matter of localization. I.e. which cells give the signals. The frequency basically corresponds intensity.

If you got access to a microscope I would just do some cell counting. It is more direct and you have less cultivation issues (also reduces risk to cultivating nasties). However the sample collection tends to be uneven, so that the overall accuracy may be rather low.

The brain only processes signals coming from the nerves. It does not concern itself about the origin of the signal (i.e. whether they are from light in the visible range or by direct excitation). If you punch yourself in the eye you can elicit unspecific action potentials that will be interpreted by the brain as light flashes). There are no differences in the "frequencies", the light just elicits the cones with different efficiency and the summary signals in intermediate neurons moving to the brain will then interpret it as a given color. So if you exchange a rod that adsorbs e.g. red most effectively and exchange it with one that reacts to UV your brain would interpret UV as red.

There are several reasons why they may be invisible. The most likely one is that they may be not resolved in the gel because they are either too long, too short or too close in size from each other. It is a matter of the resolving power of the gel rather than the stain, though. Stains come in when it comes to sensitivity. However, a proper ethidium bromide stain tends to be very sensitive to begin with and if you see some bands, the rest should be visible, too. Exceptions are very small molecules, but chances are that they are outside the resolving power of the gel, anyway.

Technically only type II restriction enzymes (as the one mentioned in the OP) cut at specific sites. But in direct to the question, yes it is because of the fact that the recognition length differs. A 4bp recognition sequence is likely to be more abundant in any given sequence than a 6 bp sequence. Unless of course that for some reason the sequence is devoid of any recognition sites (which is often the case in artificial DNA molecules). But in any random fragment the amount of potential sites scales inversely with the length of the recognition sequence.

It does nothing on its own. It essentially only provides the input into the electron transport chain. The transfer of electrons from one complex to the other within the membrane is then coupled with the transport of protons out of the cell, which builds the necessary proton gradient for the ATP synthetase.

I may be a bit slow today but I am not quite sure what you are describing. What mechanism is it that you are looking for. The fact that the inhibition of an enzyme affects gene regulation or that the inhibitor of enzyme activity may also affect (in addition to the enzyme inhibition itself) regulation of genes? Are you thinking of autoregulation (i.e. the target is the gene of the enzyme in question)? There are several possible mechanisms, but I would need more details.

The whole protein complex enhances the light harvesting properties. It is not something that can be replicated with current techniques easily.

I suppose you mean 8 fragments instead of 8 base pairs? I do not think that the teacher gave the correct answer, but to be sure, what sizes did you expect?

There may be areas addressing this (e.g. neuroscience). However, why do you think that understanding why things work does take the significance out of it? Nature is becomes more and more fascinating the more you learn about it. What is true, however is that due to the complexity of all of it it is unlikely that science will come to the point that it is able to explain everything (or even the majority of everything). Nonetheless, when did religion explain anything (disregarding making up explanations). These two different approaches to question show that they are best kept separate, though.

Either a double or a single strand is considered a molecule, respectively. Each has different chemical properties.

There is also beef boullion available that is made for bacterial cultivation. Generic stock soup may or may not work with certain bacteria as the composition will vary a lot. My guess however, is that you will most likely grow mold on it. Also if you manage to randomly grow bacteria, be aware that you may have large amounts pathogens in it. Technically it is not that different from having spoiled food around, though. And also many microorganisms hydrolyze gelatin, that is why normally agar (which less bacteria can utilize) is normally used instead.

I would assume that depending on the average quality of schools (and sadly from what I have heard and seen it appears that in the US the level is not very good) homeschooling can, if done correctly and by people who know how to do it be an improvement. I would think, however that it would not work for the majority of families. Adding time and constraints to the mix (assuming both parents having jobs which is increasingly common), it will be very hard. Many people that I know spend extra time with their kids to help them in certain areas and provide additional education in areas the kid is interested in, but then most of them are academics to begin with. They rarely do have time for a complete homeschooling curriculum, though. An additional problem that I mentioned in another thread is the potential isolation of the kids from dissenting "mainstream" views. I was initially interested whether there are specialized textbooks for parents that want to homeschool and was kind of shocked to see the biology books on display. Question is whether that is a fringe market or mainstream.

I think that it is a no-brainer that individualized education will be beneficial. However, to provide that on a broad basis with qualified teachers is hardly possible. However, one does not have to think that the HS or college curriculum is the whole package. One can always take additional hours according to interest and parents should (provided having enough time and money) foster their child's interests and support them individually. However, I do think that talent is overrated for the most part. Interest is more important and that can be groomed.

In almost all organisms: via TCA and then gluconeogenesis.

I would think that for certain scholarships the community service part is more helpful than the actual membership.

Gelatin is not used because most microorganisms can easily dissolve it. You will end up with contaminated goo.