CharonY

Precisely. One of the most debatable species concept is that within prokaryotes. In practical terms a simple cut-off in sequence divergence is used, but this is, of course, an arbitrary line. It is clear though, that prokaryotic gene pools behave differently than that of (higher) eukaryotes. As such it is painfully obvious that a general species definition is very hard (if possible at all) to apply. But as Mokele pointed out, species is essentially a crutch that we use out of convenience, but also out of necessity in some cases.

Good point. However at least those areas which have demonstrated to further sciences just by providing data (like e.g. genome sequencing or biodiversity projects) do get funding. However rarely individual funding but rather within large, say, genomic clusters. On the other hand, within those projects generally at least a proposal must be given why these particular organisms might be of interest. Even science support should have at least a rationale behind it, even if it is no directly aimed at solving a particular question. And at that point the border between "support" and science proper becomes fuzzy. In my opinion at least.

This is one of the few times where I would actuality recommend reading the definitions in Wikipedia. If there are still questions afterward you can always ask them here.

Tough call. However even in the more exploratory sciences one does not usually limit oneself to mere observations. For instance genome sequences are not sold as naked sequences but at the very least derived information from these sequences (e.g. metabolic capabilities, comparative evolutionary analyses, etc.). I agree that mere observations are not necessarily science, however even projects that did not start out with hypotheses as such (this includes much in the omics field) can derive information once the data has been collected. It is generally harder to sell, though.

Stacked atop each other, no less.

Looks to me like a docking assignment. The structure of a glutamine synthetases have been resolved. It is likely that in class some kind of docking software has been discussed. Essentially you will have to dock the substrates to the enzyme and see which moieties interact with each other. Either that or check the original papers in which co-crystillization experiments have been performed.

Were the ions generated by PI or EI? Anyway you are not completely off-track. m/z 43 is the acylium ion, and m/z 70 is the result from a heterolytic cleavage from the distonic ion. So you have a gamma-H rearrangement, followed by the cleavage. What also happens is a double H rearrangement (also called McLafferty+1), resulting in a weaker peak at m/z 61.

No, that does not really matter. Just for the records, I worked a while in a MPI and held a course for one of those international research school (also for the record, I am writing while having migraine so you'll have to excuse gross errors). From what I have gathered from colleagues in the UK the system is totally different (and it is very different to what I experience in the US). Basically in Germany you had to have a diploma before you are allowed to work on your phd thesis. Until a few years back there was nothing like a bachelors degree. Only diploma (equivalent to a master) and then the phd. What they added to become more international is to allow bachelors to work one year and then have an exam, which decides whether they are allowed to pursue the phd or whether they have to get a master first. This can be a bit tricky on the candidate. In some cases the PIs do not want to sponsor the candidate after that point. What it boils down to is that your actual undergrad choices tend to have less impact in the German system. Especially as a bachelor there is usually little interest in what you have done so far, but rather if you are suitable to work in the given group on a given project. The reason being is that everything up to bachelor's degree tends to be viewed as just covering the basics. A masters degree holder is more interesting as they usually have already demonstrated some kind of research experience. In that case candidates having done something remotely in that field are preferred. Though even then the criteria might be rather broad. So in case of neurosciences those that had neurobiology, developmental biology and cell biology might be preferred over, say environmental microbiologist graduates. But it also depends on what kind of techniques the candidate is familiar with and what the project in question requires. Additionally, the phd course in Germany is much more focused in research. In the US (and I think in the UK, too) you have to visit courses as a phd candidate. In Germany only in those international programs do you actually have to attend to (very few) courses and usually work full-time on the phd project. It is less of a school, so to say.

Binds to what?

In that case you would only have to check what is known about EPS production in the bacterium that you have in class.

The majority of all natural occuring antibiotics target proteinbiosynthesis or, more precisely, the ribosome complex for obvious reasons. There are, as mentioned, other targets, though they are generally not that abundant.

True, that might be a school answer. Only it does not make much of a sense as basically any organism can be considered ethanol tolerant. A number of bacterial ethanol fermenters are not noticeable more (and sometimes even less) resistant than others living in the same habitat. The point is that it is basically only a matter of concentration (and the flux in the given habitat).

However, ethanol fermentation does not generate ATP per se, but something different.

You won't find a general pathway for capsule synthesis. The reason being that capsules are a collective term for a number of chemically different outer layer formations of bacteria. Most of the time they are polysaccharides, but can also be (glyco-)peptides. As such synthesis pathways will vary from organism. Your best bet is either check your textbook for an example, or check the literature (especially reviews) for a specific bacterium. Your best bet would be E. coli.

But the proteins responsible for pigment are genetically encoded an controlled.

Actually from what I gather the British (and US) system are quite different from the German ones.

Hmm two electron transporters? Hmm I assume that the transmembrane proteins in mitochondria are meant. NADH is not completely wrong, as it delivers the electrons to the chain, but in my memory the transport chain consists of three transmembrane complexes (NADH reductase, cytochrome b-c1 complex and cytochrome oxidase complex) as well as the ubiquinone pool and the succinate dehydrogenase. As such I am not sure why there should be only "two" of anything. Also wasn't FadA a thiolase? The basic bit to understand about the electron transport chain is that electrons are moved along a potential gradient and are used to power the export of protons to build up a proton gradient.

I think ever since I observed an ant road and followed them to their hive I wanted to become a field biologist. I settled for lab biologist and am basically dreaming about a faculty position (not even about tenure, some dreams are too far to even dream about...).

Moved the post to this thread. mozhigopi, is there any point to these posts?

First time I heard of that kind of "biological phenomenon." Redundancy is abundant, so to say.

Well, obviously compounds that are not only hydrocarbons (as e.g. amino acids) cannot be synthesized merely by using sugars. Is the original question pertained to the biosynthetic pathway of histidine ?

Hmm. In biosciences jobs tend to start with a PhD (be it research or not). It is possible that in the US there are more technician jobs available for graduates, though. Though lab jobs tend to be on the more hands-on side (other jobs include sales, project managers, etc.). Exclusive field work is afaik comparatively rare. However there are jobs in conservation, forestry that might also be attractive.

Simply put. Yes they do. More or less precisely as we do. The molecular basis of the diurnal clocks is to my knowledge very similar across almost all animals.

That's what I actually meant with live titer...

Generally a clean poster without too many colours tend to be less distracting and more informative. The details depend a lot on what you want to focus on, but put only those in that are really needed to convey your point. E.g. for technical presentations you may add methodical details but only present the data that are directly relevant for the data (instead of all optimization steps), otherwise focus on the results only and only flesh out technical detail when absolutely necessary or convey them verbally at the poster presentation. Diagrams are good if they are easily read and informative. It is annoying to have to read through dozen of legends only to find that the information could have been a single sentence within the poster. But generally diagrams are preferably over large text bodies. Keep the poster simple to read and do not toss the elements too much around.