CharonY

Indeed. The therapeutic index is normally given as LD50:ED50. To nitpick: it does not necessarily that it would be 641 times the chance of getting killed (or getting killed half the time) as the the Dose:response relationship does not have to be linear (it rarely is, actually).

So you wan to know which other hormonal signals are glucose regulated? Generally of course everything connected carbohydrate metabolism and homeostasis. Of course, you should be aware that not in all cases glucose itself, but a derived carbohydrate can be the proximate signal leading to hormonal responses. That being said it can become pretty complicated. For instance, sugar levels in blood can cause regulatory cascades that in turn lead to further regulations and so on. Depending on which level of the regulation you look at the system glucose may not be directly, but indirectly involved. Add to it the fact that many regulatory system integrate several signals (i.e. not solely the glucose level) you can imagine that things can get extremely complex. For instance, insulin production is known to be sugar correlated, however, insulin (together with leptin) is also a signal for arcuate nucleus and are proposed to work as adiposity signals. This, in turn, activates/inhibits the release of rurther hormones. While these are not necessarily directly regulated by glucose on the molecular level, glucose is still the initiator of this cascade.

Isn't it simply more likely that if you bother to talk to your plant that you take better care of it? That reminds me, I should water my plants at some point. And may provide sunlight from somewhere, too. Eventually.

Every novel since i got hooked on Neuromancer when I was a teen and the net was still ascii. I think the only novel I didn't loved was the difference engine. But I cannot recall why.

There is an initiative for physicist to combat cancer, headed by a cosmologist. I am pretty sure frogs fit in. Just do not mention that you are a biologist.

I think the answers that you want to see are more down the road than what the paper provides. They essentially describe a regulatory circuit that are elements in controlling circadian rhythm, and provide evidence that they are indeed elements of the circadian clock. What effects mutations would have are guesswork at best at this point (without physiological data). They are just part of a larger regulatory machinery and it is hard to predict, even if all the targets are known.

Apparently they found out what the news channels knew for a while already. Narratives are more interesting to people than facts.

From a biological viewpoint O2 levels are not terribly hard to measure. Bacteria use oxidation states all the time. To my knowledge an equivalent has not been detected in humans yet (well last time I looked was around 5 years ago), but there is oxygen-dependent regulation going on. On the cellular level, that is. As a side-note, the CO2 comes from the oxidation of C-sources which of course is not limited to carbohydrates.

That makes sense. Yes, you would have a transcriptional reporter system then. Two disadvantages: one is that you got two promoters in your system now, that may interfere with the regulation cascade, if it is tightly controlled. Second that it is obviously only useful for transcriptional analyses. You lose information about other regulatory events as well as localization, etc.

If that was the case geckos would have a hard time getting around. You are talking about the animal, right? They have hairs and pads under their soles effectively increasing their surfaces (and thus surface-surface interactions) massively.

NIH also got a smallish bump. Though much will go into cancer research (as usual).

WB, there is always a underlying risk that the manipulation may affect physiology, regardless how you do it. It is just an accepted fact. Mr. Skeptic, I cannot see how it would work and what it is supposed to accomplish. Maybe you may have misunderstood what a transcription factor is.

Uhm nope. Wrong application. The OP is talking about embryonic development.

It is in the description. If they rely on data from several other group rather than doing it on their own it is a metastudy.

My bad, I retyped it in a rush. Corrected now to (1/100)^12. The point was to show where the 12 came from. The calculation amounts to the same, though (i.e. 0.6 molecules per liter). This is not necessarily correct as the absolute number of molecules present depends on the volume, of course. Given the fact that much smaller volumes are routinely sold, the chances are very low to have any molecules in them, of course.

Shoot, lost my post. To make it short, homeopathic stuff usually comes with a dilution indicator. A common one is 12 C. This corresponds to a (1/100)^12 dilution. Now, if you start with a 1M solution (which is pretty high) you would end up with 0.6 molecules per liter (just multiply the dilution with the Avogadro number). So, of you drink 1 liter of it, you got a 60% chance to actually have ingested one single molecule.... Edit: OK, lost original post and cross-posted. Regarding the meta-study: it is also likely to be a false positive report due to multiple hypothesis testing issues.

What the....? They do not have to register it with the FDA? Now that is scary. And weird. I would have assumed that anything that claims to have any health effects should undergo FDA approval. Or at least testing for safety.

Well, but in reality science only gets so much money. We could get more NIH programs, but we don't. In reality the chances of getting extramural funding are often between 1-10%. The question is simply what to prioritize. If the big money goes into manned flight then simply other areas will be cut. Simply as that. And as Swansont already pointed out, other areas of research yielded better bang for the buck.

It isn't. There are no terminators therefore for transcriptional purposes it is a single gene. You may be confused with some of the nomenclature here. Each translational reporter is, in essence also a transcriptional reporter (but not vice versa). Regarding fusion proteins, sometimes the GFP interferes with enzyme functions. One can play a couple of tricks but some fusions do not work well.

Several ways to do it. One is to insert the reporter gene in-frame, thus creating a hybrid protein.

Nope, bacteria degrade cholesterol, they do not use it as eukaryotic cells do. Gram-negatives have good enough membrane integrity, the outer cell membrane contributes much to it. You should check bacteria out that live in close association with said eukaryotes. Wild guess: Nocardia.

Well, the correlations are weak to begin with and would warrant more statistical analyzes. Chances are that they are not significant to begin with.

Polar or non-polar are not dichotomous variables. Take a look at the structure, especially the aromatic ring.

bascule, for phones it is a different matter. But my point was that for productivity purposes (and the iPad is simply too big to be directly compared to a phone) I cannot see it being more efficient. Imagine correcting papers. I can sit in a plane, draw circles around stuff that I like to have changed make a few sketches about how the graphs should look like and hope that someone can read me handwriting (or let the software try to figure it out). That does not work with touchscreens. If I was only texting, well yeah then I wouldn't need it. The only disadvantage a convertible has (again, it comes with a touchscreen) is that it is heavier than an iPad. But then the question is what the iPad may be for. In the current iteration it is not a good working platform, too big for a mobile replacement. It may be ok for a reader, but bloody expensive and harder on the eyes than e-ink.

Bascule, the convertible I use can use stylus as well as your finger. I am not too big of a fan of smearing my fingers over the screen though and for making small notes or sketches the stlyus is much more useful to me. It is simply faster to ink in a document than call up a touch keyboard and type stuff in it.