CharonY

Ouch. Knowing about MSDS is not really helpful. Rinsing won't harm (unless your school does not conform to safety regulations that require regularly testing and cleaning of the system) but if by now your eye did not react it is unlikely that anything will be happening. Still, do not take my word for it as I was not there am not a medical professional yadahadaha, don't sue me, I am only a spambot.

If it was sulfamic acid at any significant amount you would have reddened eyes at the very least. Eyes are pretty sensitive against corrosives and irritants.

If you did not feel anything it is probably nothing to worry about too much. Two things I have to comment on, though. If something managed to hit your eye while wearing goggles than they do not fit you. Get others. Also, if you think something got into your eyes use the eye washing station. Of course you are familiar with the MSDS of your chemicals, right?

The problem is that the DNA helix has to be "unzipped" by a helicase. The enzyme essentially moves along the DNA and separates the two strands. If you follow the point of the unzipping, it is easy to note the difference between the 5-3 and 3-5 strand. More precisely, the lagging strand can be most easily defined at the actual replication fork (the part where the single and double stranded DNA meet). The whole bubble itself is of no consequence for that and maybe even a bit confusing. If you look at the pic above just look closely on either the left or right end, near the fork (and ignore the rest). There you should see why in one direction it is lagging.

Almost too detailed, but important points. Although one could always wonder whether a EST was cloned or the native gene... I'll move it into the homework section for now.

You will need to find more info on the agar plates. What medium does it consist of? All agar plates contain nutrients, but the question is what precisely do they contain. One guess is that at least one is LB (containing tryptone, yeast extract and NaCl). It is a very rich medium and quite a number of bacteria, including E. coli and Salmonella. Especially with the latter I'd be careful, though. The thing is, everything will have bacteria on it. The question is only whether it will grow on the medium presented. Also the question is whether the teacher wants you to know what to expect on any given foodstuff (quite tricky) or what will grow on a given nutrient plate (a bit easier though only with a limited view).

Bacteria living in milk are usually acidophilic. You should take care to use a suitable medium.

Apart from the poor phrasing, let me ask a question back at you. What would you need for a gene to be expressed in a given organism (in this case, bacterium). Based on how the question is phrased I assume it is a theoretical or homework question. If it is really supposed to be a troubleshooting question, well the question itself needs some reworking as there is something definitely not right.

That did not raise any eyebrow among the students. I am not sure whether that says more about them or me.

There are a number of bacteria, including Shewanella, Geobacter, Anaeromyxobacter just to name some, that at least can reduce uranium (VI) into a less soluble U(IV), which may be more amendable for clean-up strategies. Of course as with other dissimilatory reduction pathways the electron acceptor is not consumed as such, but merely reduced. One problem with microbial fuel cells in general is that in order to create electricity they require (among the usual nutrients) an electron donor. In many cases this is acetate. This, in the end, is rather inefficient as feeding a fuel cell with them would be far too expensive. Using waste, is of course a nice to circumvent the cost problem, but that has some issues, too. One of them is that they already have their particular microflora which are generally not that efficient in generating electricity, but will outcompete those that are. The second is the abysmal efficiency. These are partially the result of energetical limitations of the available biomass. I think the article also refers to a paper by Lovley in which they isolated (not engineered) a Geobacter strain that was more efficient in fuel cells with acetate (not waste) as electron donor. In short, a interesting topic, though there are limitations to overall efficiency that are most likely not possible to overcome due to physical constraints. At least not if we think in the direction of large-scale energy production. It is more interesting to think in the direction of bioremediation, though.

Phi, I suggest that next time we should run, waver our arms and scream incoherently. Great exercise and it may obscure the fact that is no immediate threat. In fact, with some luck others will join in. For now, excuse me, I will have to give a lecture and I have not screamed myself hoarse yet.

Let me ask something. They have high RNA contents compared to what? (Context, context, context...)

What is the question directed at? The physiological role of sporulation or the regulatory cues derived from starvation?

NEB? As in the company new england biolabs? No offense, but if you are really interested in it I would really recommend some basic cell biology books first rather than trying to piece together information from various websites, manufacturers of enzymes etc. I assume that your major interest in in the field of bioengineering. A major roadblock, however, is the lack of our understanding of how even basic processes interact within a cell (an much less between cells). The field tends to be super-specialized due to the complexity of even apparently trivial interactions. Cell cultivation is one field on its own and while often being a prerequisite of genetic works, it tends to harbor different questions. If you are really interested again, I would refer you to the basics and then build up specific questions from there. At this point your questions are not focused enough to be able to guide you in any direction. If you have specific questions regarding a given technique (molecular biological or cultivation technique), it may be more useful to start a separate thread for each.

Unfortunately much of it is based on some misconception as to what the mechanisms may be involved in, say horizontal gene transfer or symbioses. I have the feeling that the basic assumption of this thread is to create GMOs capable of the feats described above which, as it is, is still in the realms of science fiction. The understanding of cellular processes still only allows us a limited prediction as to what certain genetic changes will result in overall phenotype of a cell, much less of a whole organism with the exception of a limited number of well known pathways. For instance, using reverse genetics to create a microorganism that produces a higher amount of certain substances (as e.g. amino acids or vitamins) is generally rewarded with limited success (as e.g. compared to screening for organisms that do it naturally). Is it possible to dream of a chromosome sequence and stitch together a DNA molecule? Yes it is, but dreaming of a some complicated phenotypes and then create such an organism is still far from possible.

Uhm, horizontal gene transfer and symbioses are quite different things. Unless one wants to go down and discuss quasi-symbiotic relationships of mobile genetic elements (like viruses) with their hosts. And just btw. Agrobacteria hijack plant tissues and lets them produce opines.

As Mokele said. Also research on genetic data from individuals fall under general ethical guidelines for human research subject which are aimed to protect the research participants. It is, for instance necessary to anonymize genetical data so that it is impossible to track back the respective individual from which individual the sample came from.

It depends on what you have available for sterilization. Ideally use an autoklave or a heat sterilizer. Though your question implies that you do not have access to any of them. But if you get access to anything sterile it is probably easier to use that instead. Sterile Q-tips could also work. The key is really not consistent strikes but rather the ability not to make too broad ones. But starting with a low enough dilution even that is not an issue. Just make broad strokes on around 1/3 of the plate (just to distribute your sample) then draw out a single line from the end of that area. Then continue to strike it out into a free area of the plate. Then start from the end of that strikes and continue.

The point is that LPS elicit strong immune responses and thus inflammatory responses.

I am not sure whether that is true. Those who are labeled geniuses put a heck of a lot of time into the area that interests them. They are more likely to be more intelligent than average. however they also put a disproportionate amount of time into it. I have yet to meet a single person in the science field who is able to do what he/she does without effort. To most it just appears to be effortless. Even Mozart had to work hard....

Also memory is selective and plastic and if not reinforced (e.g. by recalling it every now and then or having a strong association with something) may also result in gradual loss.

I think the definition of socialism has become really fuzzy over time. As mentioned earlier the original sense was that the means of production are owned collective by the people and communism. According to Marx and Engels this eventually would lead to the creation of a egalitarian democratic society where decisions were not made by a government, but directly by the people. Needless to say, it never happened. That being said none of the European countries is truly socialistic (or was, for that matter). Most adopted some flavors of social democracy, which emerged from the socialist movement and therefore have a mixed economy.

Talent is extremely overrated. The single most important trait is probably persistence. Being fascinated by a subject helps to maintain it. The rest is just hard work (as in any other job). For that it is important to realize what science really entails (as opposed to romanticized versions of it).

This is a simple maths question. Please indicate at each step the dilution factor. I.e. adding 1 part os something to two parts yields what?

Two major risk factors are the potential of generating viruses that become competent again in vivo and possibly oncogenesis. While the vector as it is usually used should not be really harmful, there is always the possibility that changes might occur post-infection. This will also make it difficult to find out if they are causative agents in diseases or cancer that may occur later on. At least I have not heard of any infection that could have been traced back to a lab accident with a modified vector yet. The actual risk really depends on the origin of the vector, its safety features and what insert is used for transfection.