CharonY

Is it really illegal to do a test? I thought it was only not usable in court?

Actually they are not the same thing, though admittedly they are often used interchangeably. Protease is the generic term for all peptide hydrolases which includes endo- as well as exopeptidases. A proteinase is another term for an endopeptidase. At least it was traditionally that way. Since them it has become muddled a bit.

Indeed. And in fact the Maths makes it far easier for physicist to discuss things, even if they are from different disciplines. Different disciplines in biology have a harder time to communicate with each other (I have been in both situations while working with physicists and microbiologists/ecologists).

Yupp, I take it back. Spermatozoa do stain. Though the mechanism appears to be a bit obscure (they can be either positive or negative, depending on chromatin condensation). But as already mentioned, there is no way to confuse them with the bacteria in question.

Please provide an example that we may discuss.

Yeah, that would be good. I kind of misread the OP- I kind of thought the question was what the difference in establishing the lineages were (sucks not to be able to read). Differences are to be expected, of course, but "consistent" differences are unlikely.

The virus particle itself outside the body is not likely to maintain integrity for very long. The maximum is around a few weeks in humid environments. But inside the body it is a different story. Though of course the stables form is the one we all carry around with us: integrated into genomes.

They are mathematical models based on current available sequences and include factors like e.g. mutation rates.

Reproducible. In that case is it possible that the films are no good anymore? You could try and expose a film and develop it to see whether you see a similar pattern on it.

Well, I have not used dendritic cells myself, but with older, almost apoptotic cell cultures I used to get far lower yields, too (roughly half of active cells). But absolute quantities are hard compare, of course, at least if not normalized to cell numbers.

Actually it looks a bit like something was on the film, or the developer was not stopped evenly, something like that. Is this reproducible?

This is homework, I'll move it. Wheee Tris buffer!

Odd question. What volume are we talking about?

It depends on what you electroporate. But as you probably know the efficiency is inversely related to the vector size. In practical terms anything above around 500 kb probably will hardly work. But you will already tend to have rather low rates above 200 kb.

More than usual, you mean?

One day only? Should not do anything. Remember, you are likely to incubate your bacteria for at least one day (if it is E. coli) at 37° anyway. Most ABs are fairly stable. While the efficiency might go down, you usually have so much of it in that it does not matter. It is a different thing if you work near the minimal effective concentration, though. In that case you have to keep everything as similar as possible.

Actually I am not that sure whether it will get wet very much.

There are a lot of potential reasons, most notably the presence of RNAses. What precautions do you take? Are all you extractions low or only with dendritic cells?

I like that point of view. Though of course as good scientists we should all now be fighting about which area should be funded . ATM the funding success rate at the NIH is way below 10%, in some areas 2%. Quite a number get rejected due to fund limitations without actually being read (but at least with an attached note to resubmit it next year or so... if you still got the job that is). Stimulus would be good . Alas, if I take a look at the layoffs at universities it is not likely to happen (and I have to submit another grant proposal, though chances are high that it won't make it)...

I am not sure whether this has been resolved yet. Last time I read about it pinocytosis was discussed, but ectodesmata and even "wounds" in the membrane were also likely entry points. Again, AFAIK none of this have been proven.

Re: genetic code. The genetic code specifically refers to the coding of amino acids by DNA. That in turn means that the origin of the genetic code refers to how the first amino acids got coupled to a certain DNA sequence. There are number of theories out there, specifically the stereochemical theory, the coevolution theory, the error minimization theory, and I think another one, but I forgot how it was called (or maybe it was only three). What you are talking about is something different, simply because the replication mechanism (as in contrast to the replication process) is not directly dependent on the sequence itself. Hence it does not code for self-replication or whatever you are insinuating.

And again a wrong depiction of evolution. *sigh*

Sperm cells have a cell membrane . Just shortly, all cells have a cell membrane. However certain cells have an additional structure termed cell wall. In general bacteria, archaea, plants and fungi possess one, however they are structurally very different. They just got the same name because they provide additional stabilization (or because we ran out of names). In any case, animal cells do not possess one. Actually it is dependent on what diagnostics is assumed to be done with the sample in question. There are some standard screens, but no lab would try to identify everything that is possible within a given sample. In any case, even if there was seminal fluid, the presence of the bacteria shows that they are there. It is not possible to confuse bacteria with eukaryotic cells (if that was your question).

Dude, explain why a polymer is a code if it codes for nothing? Where is the connection between code and replication? It looks like you use it synonymously.

Adequate for what? I only got 32- I only got 32- I only got 32