CharonY

From what I remember the aggregation of misfolded prions pertains to the onset of the diseases but is not a crucial factor in driving the conformational changes itself. Once in the infectious form, they rapidly aggregate (but not before).

Sorry this is not true. Folding is not considered information containing as it just alters the state of the protein/prion in question. For the same reasons you would not consider the substrate in e.g. allosteric inhibition as information. Moreover the misfolded prion is not more stable than the other form. If that was the case there would only be misfolded protein. Both states are stable but the misfolded prions facilitate the conversion from one state to the other.

I believe that there are far less safeguards for any industrial impact on ecology. Of course the EPA (in the US) and related agencies have that on their agenda, though again mostly through the lense of human health rather than purely ecological impact. Compared to what general pollution (and deforestation etc.) has already done the the environment I doubt that biotechnology (except in scifi novels) will have such a large impact to begin with.

Which chemosynthetic process generates oxygen?

More likely digest of biomolecules...

I am not sure what you mean. Essentially they have to ensure that it does not pose any acute damage to human health (or argue that it is not reasonable to believe so). The rest is not under regulation.

Changes will occur. Only they may not persist.

This sounds a bit convoluted to me. Also I do not understand why EOF is a prerequisite of electrophoresis. It is true however that under conditions where electrophoresis occurs EOF does too. EOF is based on the fact that in a conductive medium a double layer forms between the the medium and the container/capillary if surface charges are present. If you got a NaCl solution, for instance and a negatively charged capillary, the Na+ ions will accumulate near the surface, creating a diffuse charge layer with a given length (the Debye length). These charges (Na+ in this case) will move in an electric field, dragging the bulk fluid with them. Obviously in systems where the volume is big compared to the surface EOF will be very small and confined to areas near the walls, whereas in capillaries or microfluidic systems they may be major driving forces. In a normal system this can interfere with electrophoresis as they add another flow to the net movement of the analytes. Depending on the direction of the respective flows they can accelerate the movement (if the flow is in bot cases in the same direction) or slow it down (if both point to different directions. The larger the system the smaller the interference is, though. In cases where the EOF is stronger than electrophoresis, the net movement will reverse.

1) if you are one of 1000 unmemorable students the letter is worthless to begin with 2) you underestimate the ability of people to recognize their own writing plus rarely does one write out hundreds of those per semester. 3) you assume that you only have to get by the admission center. However, you forget that you will at some point join a group. The group leader/prof may also get to see your letter (especially if he/she is not desperate for bodies). And he/she may know the other guy. If the letter is well forged but not memorable it goes back to 1) if it is not well forged both will be furious (I know I would). For the minute advantage one may or may not gain the risks involved are tremendous.

ZolarV, nope it does not work that way, sorry. Generally plants are not dependent on external C sources too much (with exception) however all plants tend to lose carbohydrates (and other compounds) by exudation through the root. They have mechanisms to recapture some of it (in competition with microorganisms, of course). As far as I am aware that is limited to low MW sugars, though. Protocorms will definitely take up e.g. glucose, trehalose or mannitol (some commonly used C sources) but I doubt it will be able to utilize anything more complex than that (unless bacteria are around to digest it, but then they will feed, too).

I would assume that that one would not pass. But it makes me wonder, what are the requirement to put a bill up for vote?

Ugh. That is a way to get kicked out. It is not that people do not talk to each other, you know?

Hmm an interesting thought. Though one could argue that at this point the communistic country would still not considered capitalist as the goods would dissipate within its own country instead of accumulating in limited hands. If I recall my highschool history lesson correctly the ownership of the capital rather than the trading itself was an issue. But then I am really not knowledgeable enough in the fine points.

Technically, you can't. You are right in the assertion that democracy and communism are not on opposite ends. However, in capitalism the means of production are in the hand of individuals, whereas in a communistic society they would be shared by everyone. As the powers were also supposed to shared by everyone (though I do not know how that was supposed to work out) there wouldn't be any ruling class or group. In a sense communism was also supposed to be a democratic society. Again, I am only talking about the theory as originated by Marx and Engels not how it eventually played out. China, in that sense, is not communistic, but authoritarian (despite being widely capitalistic) as others have pointed out.

Blast tells you about global homologies and related sequences. If you want to find out whether there are conserved areas you should proceed by getting further mitochondrial sequences (from the area that you sequenced) and do an alignment (e.g. using clustal).

In which context? I can think of at least half a dozen.

Genecks, I have no idea what you are talking about. I am talking from the perspective of a scientist. A distinction only makes sense if it is helpful in any way or if it is based on intrinsic properties. The dichotomy between alive and dead is very old, however, we know that there is no clear cut distinction. Viruses are definitely borderline, for instance. If we consider metabolism to be crucial, they are definitely not. However, as biologically active replicative entities they cannot be dismissed as pieces of dirt, for instance. How about differentiated cells that lack the ability to replicate, for instance? In other words, in science the question is far from trivial, yet making the distinction makes sense in certain contexts, and doesn't in many other. It is more a convenience, similar to the species concepts (although the latter of a higher impact in many fields), to make that context depending distinction.

This question pops up every now and then. The basic is that there is no consensus, only more or less useful conventions that assist in categorizing stuff. Whether it is useful to make such a distinction in the first place is dependent on the question at hand.

It is slightly more complicated than that. Generally the major forces in such systems are electrophoresis and electroosmosis (the latter mostly in capillary or smaller system and assuming a homogeneous field). The electrophoretic component is determined by the electrophoretic mobility of the particle in the given system. The force of acting on the particle scales with the charge, although geometry also has an effect (as well as media properties). Generally, however, the size effects tend to be negligible compared to the charge (on which the field really acts on). The size dependent resolution in some standard electrophoresis techniques is based on the use of additional tricks (i.e. gels) to achieve separation in cases where the electrophoretic properties of the particles alone are insufficient or not well-defined (e.g. in case of biomolecules).

Well, I think toxoplasmosis is one of the best known parasites with effects on human behavior (that I am aware of). Effects of toxoplasma on human behavior. Flegr J. Schizophr Bull. 2007 May;33(3):757-60. Epub 2007 Jan 11. Abstract: Although latent infection with Toxoplasma gondii is among the most prevalent of human infections, it has been generally assumed that, except for congenital transmission, it is asymptomatic. The demonstration that latent Toxoplasma infections can alter behavior in rodents has led to a reconsideration of this assumption. When infected human adults were compared with uninfected adults on personality questionnaires or on a panel of behavioral tests, several differences were found. Other studies have demonstrated reduced psychomotor performance in affected individuals. Possible mechanisms by which T. gondii may affect human behavior include its effect on dopamine and on testosterone.

For now, yes. It is not my field of expertise but the majority of current data that I am aware of point into that direction.

First of all there is no scientific consensus on what is life. There are notions that the dichotomy between life and non-life is purely artificial. Whatever it may be, it has no real impact on this discussion as the question is not what is life, but what constitutes a person. There is no doubt that a cancer cell is alive according to all possible notions and definitions, but it is clearly not a person.

A dead cell does not have a membrane potential anymore. Pioneer, for energy conservation membrane potentials are generated passively to facilitate ATP generation. The rest does not make much sense either. ATP still can be retained within a dead cell for a while, if no lysis occurs. There a lot of different assays to determine the viability of different cells, primarily based on membrane integrity.

There are a lot of transport mechanisms and many are shared between those two cell types. However, generally this is a homework question related to what specialized functions neurons fulfill and what specific transport mechanisms are needed for that.