CharonY

Incorrect as already addressed above. A cell does not necessarily has the same age as the organism as a whole. In addition to telomere length certain epigenetic modifications have also been associated with cell aging.

Yes of course, hence my limitation to complex traits. You can only predict with a given accuracy if you know in which pathway(s) the manipulation will interfere. If you see some recent high-profile examples in the press it tends to be very simple things, like glowing pigs, for instance (introducing a foreign protein that is not suspected to interfere with anything). However in many cases the roll of a die approach (as you call it) is also done. For instance in cases of genes with unknown function. Mind you, this is mostly done in simple systems as e.g. bacteria or yeast. One would then simply screen the mutants whether one sees an effect in which one may be interested in (and discard the majority which shows unexplainable results or results that are of no interest for the screen). Again, the overall possible change due to genetic manipulation is, of course, depending on the pathway(s) that you interfere with. The main problem is that often the pathway(s) are not known a priori, or only a part is known. This is one of the reasons why it is very hard to create superperforming bacteria. If these manipulations would result in predictable results our production capabilities with genetically engineered organism would be much higher. Especially if one considers that most involve very well known pathways. However the truth is that the majority of high-performers (that I am aware of) were actually acquired by other screening wild-type strains or by random mutation and selection (i.e. non-directed manipulations). In other words our knowledgebase for directed genetic engineering is overall still low and it is clear that more accurate predictive models are needed to simulate interactions. This is one of the reasons of the rise of bioinformatics.

Not necessarily (depending on precisely what you mean with interfere, I may be misunderstanding you). But the selectivity for specific ions or any other compounds of a cell depends to a large part on cell activity. Once a cell dies it becomes porous and diffusion rather than osmosis occurs. Just to summarize: osmosis is a passive process, but it requires a semi-permeable membrane. The membrane of most cells is essentially porous, it possesses numerous channels, porins etc. that are large enough to let ions through the (hydrophobic) membrane. However, while the cell lives it also exhibits a selectivity of the ions to maintain certain gradients, for instance or a certain homeostasis for specific ions. Under this condition osmosis can occur. Once a cell dies, however the active processes cease and will be superseded by diffusion. Edit: If you meant whether cells control osmosis, then yes, depending on cell type and up to a certain limit.

Syntax error?

If you did that, which I doubt, it was probably one of the more stupid things I heard for a while. If anything grew, how would you know that it was a pure culture and not something else completely?

Not always, of course. But for complex traits for which the pathways and interactions have not been completely elucidated yet (=the vast majority), then the results are often hard to predict.

It is not a matter of decomposition. But rather that proteins in the membrane lose their selectivity. The first thing that happens when a cell dies is that that proton gradient is lost. Small and even charged molecules start diffusing through pores and channels. Also, a dead cell is a dead cell. What does the body has to do with it? The important bit is that a cell does not has a completely closed lipid membrane. If it was, it would work simply as a semi-permeable membrane for charged molecule. However, cells are riddled with porins, channels, etc. which allow the passage of molecules. The selectivity of the membrane then, however, is often dependent on cellular activity.

That is precisely the feeling that I got as an outsider. Things often tend to be made cheap and for the use of now, only to be replaced cheaply later. This includes homes, for instance. The majority in Arizona appear to be made out of wood and poorly insulated. I am pretty sure that any additional cost for insulation would be easily offset by the money spent on powering the air conditioner.

Problem is that certain mRNAs can be quite stable. So just detecting them (especially unspecific detection as in this case) is not necessarily indication of activity. Also, even if the plant as whole is not viable anymore, there may still be cells that are maintaining or even actively transcribing mRNA (at least for a given time). Depending on the sensitivity of the method you intend to use, you may still detect them.

I think, one element is a kind of prevalent isolationism, at least when it comes to ideas. Many Americans seem to be used to being the provider of ideas or concepts that they disregard that other relevant viewpoints may exist. At least this is a general feeling I often get. Just a silly example: recently one student (yes, I know my sample population is biased) was pronouncing how the US was taking the lead in going green and added that now there are recycling bins everywhere etc. When I pointed out that in Germany the waste was split into recyclables, organic and general waste for over a decade or so, there was a general air of disbelief among the American students. The foreign students had less problems to accept that. I am not sure whether that qualifies as an Achilles' heel, though.

Actually AmigaDOS is one of the reasons why I disliked windows 3.0. It felt sluggish and resource eating, and at that time I fondly recalled the Amiga Workbench in comparison. At least the latter did not freeze on a routine basis. (3.1 was relatively stable for me, though)

Actually the report states that 39 mpg is the goal. And actually this is quite realistic. My Toyota Yaris in Germany takes in real life around 6 liters per 100 km (mix between highway and city, if I go around 130 km/h in the former) which translates to roughly 38-39 mpg. If I go on highway on a constant speed I get even slightly more. There may be on average a slightly lower efficiency due to the prevalence of automatic cars in the US.

Actually, it depends. Cells can rapidly lose membrane integrity and selectivity. Thus ions would eventually be able to move through the membrane unhindered thus preventing osmosis.

Well, but he has got a point there. It is one thing to introduce the production of a specific protein, but another to change a complex trait. Even on the cell level the results can be unexpected.

Well, I would. I just dunno why.

Huh? They use either ammonia or nitrite as electron donors. You know, to generate energy in the electron transfer chain. Nitrification has nothing to do with nitrogen fixation.

Then take your pick among Staphylococcus, Listeria, Streptococcus... and in any case, you have not answered my question. Well and besides M. tuberculosis does have a persistent anaerobic state.

Then go to Arizona. Less rain. More heat. Lot more. Zombies dehydrate pretty quick.

Hrum, 3.0? I wouldn't like to go through that again. This time I'd try OS/2 for serious.

See? And that is why you scored so low. Now let's put some effort into it next time.

Nope, you cannot. The Gram stain is only indicative of the structure of the cell wall. The actual morphology is not dependent too much on it. Moreover, why the obsession with Gram-positive bacteria? You are aware that some of the nastiest bugs (as e.g. Mycobacterium tuberculosis are actually positive? I assume you are concerned about the inflammatory properties of the LPS, but this is not the only thing you should focus on. Fungi and other eukaryotic cells are larger than the average bacteria, so a size exclusion filter should work.

It depends a lot on how additional genes were inserted (or existing one manipulated). If it was on a plasmid, and there are no selective pressures to maintain it, chances are high that they get lost and if it was the only change in the genome, you would get the wild-type (that is the technical term). However changes of the chromosome provide additional bases which can mutate. The chances that it will be precisely as before the manipulation are low, with some exception. Sometimes entire regions can get deleted if e.g. there are certain complementary stretches. If you are talking about only the phenotype then the chances are high that they will lose their abilities over time, if they do not confer some kind of selective advantage.

Why should the amount of water retained in soil correlate with the air (do you mean oxygen?) content?. It depends a lot on the kind of soil, how densely it is packed and how large the interface with ambient air is.. Moist soil in a certain depth is practically anoxic. And yes, we are doing repeated necromancy here.

That is not very precise, is it? You will add two sources of error into your system.

Technically it will be almost impossible to surround oneself with a single species. Generally those numerically most abundant ones tend to excel in the utilization of a given resources to overcome growth limiting factors more efficiently than the rest. A given household, however has so many different factors (temp, humidity, availability of sunlight, nutrient sources, etc.) that it is unlikely that a single bacterium will be competititive in all aspects.