CharonY

1) This is always the basic problem with QPCRs. The most correct standard would be your target RNA in known quantities. This is rarely feasible, though. Other possibilities are chromsomal DNA, or plasmid DNA, provided that accurate concentrations are available and that your target is in there (obviously). In both cases you should be aware that due to the missing RT you will introduce a bias. If you have no reference DNA available with known concentrations you will be limited to a semi-quantitative measurement. 2) It depends where the smear is. If the size is very small, it could be the primer cloud. It does not interfere too much. If they are indeed bands, meaning fully double strand product, then the PCR is not stringent enough. In the latter case SYBR green will also intercalate there and give more signal. But after the run one usually makes a melting analysis and you should see additional products there. 3) Start with 60. IIRC the kit is desinged to run well on that temperature. 5 degrees is generally not a problem.

There was already a paper hypothesizing it a while ago. And I think also a thread about it.

Technically it is possible to synthesize at least peptides by chemical means. For full-fledged proteins usually either biological systems (as e.g. yeast or bacteria) are often used or newer in-vitro translation systems, essentially a cell-free extract that contains all the necessary enzymes for translation in.

What? I say microliter on a routine basis, but have not once heard one actually say "u-L". Not once, really. Although I sometimes abbreviate micrometer by saying "µ" (Greek letter). But I actually picked that up from physicists and chemists. In fact, I am pretty sure that you would score a lot of blank faces if you said that here (I probably would have thought that you meant "joule").

A malformed dead fetus is more likely.

It is just a pain if you write reports though. I do have a US keyboard but I like to swap it to German for this (and some other purposes). But I understand your concern of potential misunderstanding.

I am wondering whether there is actually a way to calculate alpha and beta errors of these diagnoses.

I was confused on your insistence of nucleation as an essential part of multicellularism as in the posts above already counter examples were given. You start off from some viewpoint that you apparently have but do not care to elaborate and string questions out from there. For example, what is the difference between an acellular and a unicellular organism (in your words). In short: multicellular organisms can arise by incomplete separation, or the reverse action: fusion of different cells. For both there are examples. And it happens both in eu-as well as prokaryotes.

Read again. I am saying that multicellularism is not exclusive to eukaryotes. Meaning that in the absence of nuclei (what appears to be one of you central points, if you cared to elaborate) there can also be multicelluarism. I have no idea why the existence of syncitial organsms should contradict that. Would mind to spell out your theory in a cohesive way or should I start guessing your thoughts? I have the feeling that you see a distinct line between multi and single-celled life, which is not correct. Edit: I think I may get your point. You mean that partial cell division is another means of formation of multicelluarism? Yes it is. Is it the only way? No it isn't.

Technically you are correct, of course. However, in many informal exchanges µ is often replaced by u. It is btw. one of the advantages of the Germany keyboard layout to have a µ readily available .

I have no idea what your argument is. Especially given the fact that nucleation only arose in eukaryotes (obviously), whereas multicellular structures are already found in prokaryotes.

I am still in the dark what the question is, however an experimental setup is generally not that complicated as each hemisphere gets the info from the same field of vision. That is, the right field of vision is controlled by the right hemisphere and vice versa. And one does not really need to use spoken language for these tests. It is possible, for instance to have the patient write things down or point things out. The interesting bit is that they can only do so with the same hemisphere that detects it. In other words, everything seen within the left field of vision can only be described/pointed out/etc. with the left hand/foot as both are controlled by the right hemisphere. The patient does not perceive it as two inputs, though.

Nope. Those organism are very diverse, include pro- as well eukaryotes. As such they are found in a variety of environments.

Also it is a regulatory mechanism. Single cell organism can divide and proliferate basically endlessly. However, within a larger multicellular organism this will cause detrimental effects as manifested in tumors. In the end it is likely a trade-off.

What is a noncellular organism?

Not necessarily. Or rather, rarely. The multi-cellular state is usually an endpoint of sorts. In case of myxobacteria the spores then form independent cells again. The multicellular fruiting body, however exists merely to form the spores. Also in other similar forms of primitive multicellular stages the fused cells tend to differentiate to specific jobs and subsequently lose their individual free-living capabilities.

Worse, it is dependent on the proliferation of the cell from which you look at the telomere. I am not aware of any marker that can be used to precisely track the age in blood. It is however possible to distinguish between neonates and more adult individuals by tracking the expression of specific fetal proteins/genes.

Essentially you are asking about the evolution of the multi-cellular state? There is quite some literature out there, if I find the time I can check if I can find a nice review. I think much research has probably be done on volvox. However even in a few bacterial species there are multi-cellular states. For instance during nutrient stress Myxococcus xanthus forms elaborate fruiting bodies in which spores are formed. It is likely that initially multicellular stages have evolved in otherwise free-living cells to overcome certain stress or to gains specific selective advantages.

Uhm. In that case I think the starting capital will be the biggest problem. And then go and hire people to do it...

It depends on whether you want to do basic or applied research. In industry you rarely develop new compounds but concentrate on modifying existing ones in terms of delivery, pharmacokinetics, etc. Most of the people I know with R&D jobs in the industry have degrees in pharmacy.

Rarely. First, depending on the community the endproduct of organic precursors are often other organic compounds, as e.g. acetate (unless complete oxidation to CO2 is possible). Second, in most cases metabolic byproducts create unfavorable conditions that inhibit bacterial growth before every last bit of originally present organic components have been metabolized. Essentially it depends on the total amount of organic components present in a given medium- if the amount is very low then total metabolization is more likely.

Well this cannot be easily answered as milk is a complex matrix consisting of water, proteins, sugars minerals and fat. So it is unlikely if not impossible for all components to "vanish". Now regarding the souring. In lactose free milk you still have the sugars (galactose and glucose, due to lactase treatment) as well as amino acids that can be utilized by bacteria. Depending on what pathways they use they can and will produce a number of acids (most likely commonly, acetate).

There are other forums?

Ow. I always thought that the Simpsons episode in which they attached a regulation about flight corridors to a puppy bill was satire. I did not realize that it is how it really works... I guess the Simpsons are really a documentary after all.

I would go for Child-eating Communists. Short and to the point. But isn't the whole notion just outright silly. I mean, to even bring it up?