CharonY

Just some areas: - environmental microbiology, often with focus on agricultural aspects, bioremediation or other ecoligical aspects -infectious diseases -energy creation including fuel cell, bio gas etc. -biotechnological microbiology -systems biology using bacteria as models just to name a few. Microbiology, as about any field is heavily branching out. One trend is the attempt to created predictive models for bacterial metabolism, though the successes are so far limited to few well-known pathways. The largest impact on this field were achieved due to whole genome sequencing and subsequent postgenome techniques (IMO).

Wait- the chatroom makes noises?

Moved. Please provide an initial idea of yours that can be discussed.

I assume it is the high oxaloacetic acid concentration. The accumulate in high concentration in spinach and actually form crystals. However, this is only a rough guess.

I have two problems with it. First, for a layman (which will the bulk of those accessing the articles) it will not be easily clear which article are maintained by a specialist and which are a complete mess (I have seen both in my fields). Likewise the indicated references are often not very good or are in a number of cases misquoted. Generally this should not be too much of a problem for gaining information on a very basic level, though. The second issue I got is far less tangible. From my experience (and that of others) google and wikipedia have generated a generation of students expecting easy to find "one-click-answers". The result is that any information they have tends to be very fragmented, which becomes very evident in discussions but also increasingly in courseworks. This, of course is not the sole work of search engines, as the prevalence of multiple choice exams and strong reliance of a number of school systems on memorization of tidbits rather than comprehension. However at least to my limited experience the trend appears to have accelerated up to the point that I found direct quotes from wikipedia in undergrad theses, usually about topics not within the author's field. That is, biological info in phyisics thesis and vice versa. I did try for a time to maintain quality on at least a subset of my field however, at some point it did not appear worth the effort.

I agree with that notion. It is more accurate to state that NS has a specific result, but it has no purpose.

Beside the obvious problem of anything supposedly genetically superior, you still have mutations. I propose to create a religion devoted to chant the message I intend to give at any given opportunity. To ensure survival and spread of this religion I am going to add free cookies.

As well as other extrachromosomal DNA elements. But I think we went full circle here.

Actually it depends on the phase. After S (as I mentioned earlier) a single chromsome consists of two DNA (identical) molecules. So double the amount for that time.

If you want to have good resolution down to 100 bp you should definitely use 1.8-2% gels. Regarding voltages, it also depends on buffer capacity. As a rule of thumb, lower voltages generally yield better resolution. However the trick is also to stop the gel at the right time, depending on where you expect the majority of bands. Edit: many minigels have a size of 8-7 cm. But running at 5V/cm (or 40-35 V in total) is not really necessary. Usually anything from 50-80 V generally works pretty well.

Re: Meniere, it is usually connected to vertigo and is rarely exclusive associated with tinnitus. Also the wikipedia article was quite faulty last time on this topic, last time I checked. I am not sure if they properly updated the info.

No, he was not. Either it was cloning, as Mokele described, otherwise it was just messing meaninglessly around with an egg. But surely it manipulation of DNA was not involved then. Think of it that way, would take in DNA if someone sucks a bit of tissue out of you and injects some foreign one?

Glider: best advice ever. Though if you move around, be careful to avoid pacing. iNow: while it is sometimes funny, one has to deliver it well, otherwise it is just awkward and may disrupt your flow. Just let me add, construct the talk with the audience in mind. Also, practice for good delivery (obviously), unless you are a natural.

Actually each refers to something different, so there is no way that they are used interchangeably. However, what is used depends strongly on context. A protein fold, for instance, is precisely that, one of the many possible folds found in proteins. Superfolds, on the other hand, refer to one of the roughly nine or basic folds that have no sequence or function relatedness but which dominate structural databases. Families on the other hand usually refer to relatedness rather than the structure itself, though protein families can be built either on sequence or structural similiartities. While often an phylogenic relationship is inferred, it may be solely based on other aspects as well. In other words, there are different type of protein family classification methods. A protein domain is usually defined as a stretch of protein with biological interest, as e.g. active center, co-factor binding area, etc. It may contain one or (usually) more folds. Again, each refers to another aspect, depending on context. They cannot be used interchangeably, but they may describe the same structure, only from a different viewpoint. E.g. a given protein domain, may be used as a classified to define a protein family. I would try to read the papers with that in mind once more carefully.

It sounds to me that you would profit from a more thorough explanation of the basics. More thorough than one can gather by reading most internet pages. Personally, I would recommend grabbing a good textbook. These give more information in a broader context than those one-click-web-answers.

Actually it is likely that the influence is relatively subtle. Most likely not stronger than any number of other influences on behavior (e.g. mass media). As such I would not expect any strong impacts in general.

I do not have a land line but I do not use a cell phone either. If I need to make private calls I usually use skype (also for international calls). Quality is somewhat annoying but given the few calls I make a land line does not cut it for me. And I heartily dislike cell phones. I have one around for emergencies, but never really used it so far.

Actually there are more than five. In tRNA you have got additional modified nucleotides. But that is not really important for basic understanding.

They may have modernized things a bit. On my entry form I had to answer the question whether I am member or a supporter of terrorist groups (that and whether I got chemical or microbiological training). I wonder how many terrorists they caught that way. A naturalized colleague here who was originally from Russia told me that the form he had to fill out stated something like: Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party/ Have you any mental illnesses? With only one checkbox.

In addition toxicants have a wide variety of properties. Many of which are readily stored in tissues (especially in adipose, in case of lipophilic substances). You generally cannot simply sweat them out. Most of toxins will exist via urine rather than sweat. However especially a number of synthetic substances (many of which are organohalogens) are very persistent. Finally antioxidants do roughly nothing with regards to detoxification. Oxidative stress response is a completely different pathway.

One probably should add that there are also RNA viruses that in contrast to retroviruses do not have a DNA phase. Essentially they are a kind of mobile mRNAs.

Just as a remark, it would not work. Anything strong enough to hydrolyse virus RNA would also affect normal cellular RNA. Also, the cell dies (if at all) when the virus leaves the cell. Not when it enters it (would be kind of ridiculous). And so on...

I am not sure if I missed something, but aren't these reports not actually in agreement in each other in saying that sucrose, fructose and high-fructose corn syrup elicit similar responses? And btw. as far as I am informed sweeteners do not increase the craving per se. The foundation for this is laid far earlier, i.e. in early childhood. While there is basis preference for sweet products, a diet on sweeter baby products (or vanillin for that matter) will increase the preference for the same later on in adult life.

Actually it is both. They increased the amount, people bought more of it, they increased it more, rinse and repeat. While the industry had a significant part in it especially when they started adding it into baby food, it is the consumer who showed a preference to buying it that continued the cycle. When I arrived in the US my cravings for sweets actually dropped dramatically as the stuff here is much sweeter than I was used to.

Actually the mail in the OP is wrong in several ways. I have no time to comment on the all at the moment, though. What is true, however is that a high amount of high-fructose corn syrup is bad for you (wouldn't have thought that, would ya?). But surprise, before corn syrup was used, other sweeteners, especially sucrose (a disaccharide of fructose and glucose) was used. And in most studies the effect of corn syrup and sucrose is similar. In other words, it is not corn syrup per se that causes obesity, but the overall increased consumption (plus a vast number of other changes in diet and calorie burning). I believe that I read somewhere that a few decades ago less sweeteners were used but that Americans have somehow gained appetite for sweeter food (and the food industry was happy to oblige).