CharonY

Yes, indeed, they can be intermediates of amino acid degradation. Many bacteria have a more efficient way of utilizing amino acids, though. Instead of the Ehrlich reactions (and ending with alcohols) they go back via coA dervatives to fuel the TCA. Essentially in those that utilize amino acids also as C-source.

So let's see. Your problem is the connections of glucose and pyruvate? Well how do you go from glucose to pyruvate (essentially you answered it in your post yourself). Now pyruvate is well connected to other pathways. What is the central hub in biochemical pathways in almost all organisms? From there it is a relatively small step to find the intermediates to go all the way down to the various alcohols.

Probably you should read up on basic info about enzymes and proteins, as it is too broad to cover in one or two posts. However, depending on what they told you and whether you accurately quoted it, it seems that you may be confusing things about protein and non-protein enzymes. Conjugated enzymes are still proteins, even if they are coupled to something else. Non-protein enzymes are required to be free of peptides or proteins. This include, for instance, ribozymes, which are made from nucleic acids. Again, read up first on basics of proteins, then go to protein structures (including primary, secondary and tertiary structures). Enzymes are a subclass of proteins, which you should read up after that. And only after you got a grasp of it I would go to enzyme kinetics and equlibrium reactions.

Sounds boring and the replay value is probably pretty lousy. May have good graphics, though.

Ok, so you are aware what you actually measure with this method (carboxylic groups). How many free carboxylic group does e.g. an intact dipeptide possess. How many if it is hydrolyzed?

Yes, the trendline would be called "calibration curve", but otherwise you got the principle.

Cancer is at least partially related to dysregulation of a number of cellular functions including cell proliferation and differentiation.

And you believe that if the media find people who elaborate on why the narrative of the news outlet is wrong they will actually show it? In contrast to, say, people like, Dr. Oz who can sprout popular nonsense completely unopposed? Face it, the media only shows what people like to hear. That is their main purpose and not to educate people. Unless you start your own news outlet you cannot do much against that.

OK, so how do you prevent that? The news (especially, but not limited to the US) are more interested in narratives than in facts. So you (as a scientists) tell them something, carefully pointing out the caveats and they blow it out of proportion, or misinterpret it. You call them and say what they did was wrong and they shrug and tell you that it is old news anyway. Another thing is that very few media are interested in properly reporting science news to begin with. Of course one could preach that scientists should do more outreach (on top of the extremely busy schedule I should add), but on what platform? Blog it, with the hope that a few students may end up reading it?

If you mean whether there have been measurement of thermodynamic stability of wobble base pairs, then the answer is yes. The physical forces involved are essentially the same as for normal base pairing though the resulting geometries are slightly different.

The hypothesis was formulated in the 60s. Since then wobble base pairing has become an often observed and known phenomenon.

And also, when humans are involved often rigorous controlled environments are neither feasible nor desirable. In these cases even studies with thousands of subjects can see associations that are spurious or miss important clues because the sample composition obscures it. One will hardly find simple yes or no answers, but only mounting evidence for the one or the other. Over time. The WHO's job is to give recommendations based on the data that is currently available. If new data suggests adverse effects it would be foolish to ignore it. Yet they generally give rather cautious advise. The media is complete other thing, though.

More precisely, they have an additional regulatory mechanism, triggering contact inhibition.

Depends on what you want to talk about. Most of the time I use Powerpoint with a tablet notebook so that I can scribble when there is need (I tend to hand write formulas). It really depends on the topic, and audience, though.

How do you determine the pH of a dried substance?

This is kind of off topic, but this is actually quite an interesting point. The problem is, of course that without extensive studies it is hard to figure out if a treatment really cures cancer, or whether it was just an isolated event in the lab. Of course patients with terminal cancer are prime candidates for the early rounds for clinicals as in principle they can only benefit from it. In addition, the routine timeline for clinical trials is around 6-8 years. So 50 years would probably include the discovery of a substance with yet unknown function. In fact I heard of examples of the identification of proteins that were identified around 40 years ago and are now undergoing phase II trials...

And for those that do not- welcome to the club

I think you are confusing who wants what. The companies are not per se interested in creating certain behaviors with their drugs. This is between the doctor and the patient to decide. They do provide pharmaceuticals that have demonstrated to influence conditions/diseases/whatever in a certain way that patients/doctors may find to be an improvement compared to their current condition. What precisely the drug causes is what clinical trials are for. In the given test population the reactions are monitored and communicated to the FDA who will then approve (or not) whether the given medication will be useful in treating a given condition (that is the short of it, anyway). One should also note that no medication works precisely in a given way. Organisms are terribly complicated systems and there can and will be several effects associated with any given medication. The trials are there to find out what, on average they may be. However individual differences can lead to unforeseeable results. Medicine is not deterministic and it cannot guarantee precisely the desired result. However, any medication has to be shown that in most cases improvements will be seen. In future there is the vision for individualized therapies in which omics data will be used to assess, for each person, whether any given medication may or may not be effective. But this is just a vision right now. But to answer the initial question: I cannot see how providing medication does, in any way interfere with patient's rights. Of course a doctor can misinform a patient, maybe even due to incitement by pharma companies, but that is a different matter altogether.

Let's blindfold the communicator, mix up the letters on the touchscreen and try again.

That is what I get roughly, too. Show the calculations. Also did you consider that you only used a part of each dilution (i.e. that your sample is even more diluted by a factor)?

What does gelatin consist of?

Very, actually. Just two pointers Salmonella as mentioned above and Clostridium. Read up on both.

Well, I have grown plants on nutrient medium with agar. The agar plates are whitish translucent and you can see the plant pretty well in it. The plants probably do not really benefit from the agar itself, but it allows you to solidify the nutrient solution.

Actually I would not necessarily call them equations, precisely as it conjures mathematical equations, but rather mechanistic models. Laws in sciences tend to be very specific models that can be described mathematically precisely because they are so well defined. However they do describe physical relationships rather than mathematical ones. Most constants used throughout physics and chemistry are based on empirical studies and have no direct relationship from purely mathematically derived relations. They just behave and scale in a way that can be described mathematically.

The very basic information is the order of the bases. It can refer to regions (or loci) that are coding for RNA but it may also apply to regulatory regions that are not transcribed. Nothing tells the bases how they are ordered per se, one strand just gets replicated complementary to the existing one. I.e. there is no higher ordering mechanism.