Jump to content

Dagl1

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Dagl1 last won the day on June 23

Dagl1 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

33 Good

About Dagl1

  • Rank
    Baryon

Profile Information

  • Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
  • Interests
    Science; molecular biology (RNA and neuroscience (synaptic plasticity)), (quantum) physics, programming, behavioral psychology.
  • College Major/Degree
    2-MSc biomedical sciences (molecular biology) Maastricht University --- Tohoku University
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Molecular biology, cell biology
  • Occupation
    Researcher

Recent Profile Visitors

2065 profile views
  1. One thing regarding (some forms of) phage therapy is that they negatively effect the immune system in research studies. While a phage may combat a specific bacterium, the bodies reaction to the increased viral load (if I remember correctly) leads to either overreaction of the immune system or increased infection risk to new pathogens. (I currently don't have the papers in front of me, if someone wants them I'll look them or similar ones up). Charon, some time ago I read these 2 papers (and some of their references) regarding acquisition of antibiotic resistance, which I believe goes counter to consensus, but I am not very read in this field except for papers from this "group", so I have a very biased view of this at the moment. I was wondering if you can comment on these papers, specifically on any statements related to: "Most of us were taught that terminating antibiotics prematurely can lead to the development of bacterial resistance. This has proven to be a myth as mounting evidence supports the opposite. In fact, it is prolonged exposure to antibiotics that provides the selective pressure to drive antimicrobial resistance; hence, longer courses are more likely to result in the emergence of resistant bacteria.14,15 " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5661683/#bibr14-1715163517735549 This article is the main driving point as far as I remember when reading about these papers, but can't access it at the moment. I really like their comment/peer review section, interesting to hear about the opinions of many in different fields. https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3418
  2. I think a lot of people have heard this, as it was the primary hypothesis, but from this PBS space time video (see below) and some other sources, it seems that novae are less of a contributor to the overall heavy element makeup and instead neutron stars are now the main culprits. Would like to note that I am not very researched in this field, I have just watched some videos and read some basic stuff about it, my apologies if those sources are incorrect or are presenting the change in hypothesis as something that has found consensus in the community when this may not be the case. -Dagl
  3. Except for the unusual usage of "ambassador" RNA for mRNA, I would like to add that RNA can be divided into many many more types (eRNA, microRNA, snoRNA, uaRNA, ptRNA, piwi-interacting RNA, and the larger non coding RNAs). So what would you like to discuss? Or do you have questions, as based on your other post, where you discussed both heterogeneous and homogeneous alleles and a thing called Zarah, it seems you have a skewed idea of biology and questions may be more useful for you than to only post information. -Dagl
  4. Dagl1

    Greta Thunberg

    I cannot put into words the dread I feel sometimes. I'll try though. holy fuck
  5. Some SCP's are written much better than others (the benefit and disadvantage of having many writers that can all submit their work). I know that Laphroaig is a drink, but I am really not getting it;p are we comparing rules in language with alcoholism or something like that??
  6. @strange SCP is a wonderful community written fictional universe, where things are written as SCP-xxxx articles (as if researchers write about SCP's in-universe). SCP stands for secure, contain, protect. And each SCP is an anomalous object, with specific containment procedures and lore behind it. It remains strange that clear rules are not present for such (grammar) things, but I suppose it is the same as for adjective order; wooden blue big table sounds strange, big blue wooden table does not (IMO) (there are only guidelines for adjective order as far as I know).
  7. I don't agree, but let's just agree to disagree on this;p.
  8. @studiot Thanks for the reply I also assume that the fluid contains the spores, but to be fair, in the way that it's written it could of course be interpreted in either way (although logically it will be the fluid and not the SCP itself). The way you have rewritten the sentences is similar to how I would have done so, but I am surprised that there is not a clear rule that is easily found on the internet.
  9. I really don't see it that way now that I understand the whole thing, but I had the same feeling before looking into it and with the full explanation. Do you not feel that because, as said, in some cases, the two cycles are independent, it is fair to say they are not (necessarily) involved with each other. Of course the word "involve" is vague, but from my perspective it seems like you are saying that two reactions that CAN be independent are still involved with each other, which is not true for ALL cases. Is digestion "involved" in the killing of the person (in your example). In some far fetched way it is, because digestion is necessary for you to have the energy to pull that trigger (this example is not a direct analogy to the light-dependent and -independent reactions, it is meant to indicate that the meaning of "involve" can be stretched). Not saying either interpretation is right or wrong, just my interpretation. -Dagl
  10. Hi, I've been searching online but have not managed to find an answer to my question (most likely due using search terms that lead to unrelated answers). When using "which" in the the case of: Rule 2b. Which introduces a nonessential clause (also known as a nonrestrictive or nondefining clause), which adds supplementary information. Example: The product claiming "all natural ingredients," which appeared in the Sunday newspaper, is on sale. The product is already identified. Therefore, which appeared in the Sunday newspaper is a nonessential clause containing additional, but not essential, information. In this usage of "which", are there any defined rules for what "which" points too? In the following example, "which" does not point to the last named noun, but instead to the subject of the sentence, this to me seems wrong, but I could not find any rules that point out if such a thing is okay or not. SCP-4380 secretes protein-rich fluid containing reproductive spores, which is often transported by insects. [Bold & underline by me] Due to the usage of "is" it is clear that which points towards the "fluid" and not to "spores". Is this usage of "which" okay? How would one distinguish if "spores" became singular? Kind regards, Dagl Source of pasted rule 2b: https://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhVt.asp Source of example sentence: http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-4380 Edit: I am not sure if this (Other Sciences) is the right place to post this, if we do have a linguistics subforum then this should be there.
  11. Try chemspider, or a similar program, I am getting an error but this is the code (I may have made some mistakes, check yourself or draw it yourself, there are plenty of online resources to find out which molecule something is)
  12. @CharonY thanks for the interesting + in-depth reply!
  13. Thanks! I will read it again and let the information sink in (I feel it's not intuitive that density of a vapor increases when temperature increases, but I suppose that is the result of the Ideal gas law, just conceptually I don't get it; if volume remains the same, why would the mass/volume increase if I heat something, kinetic energy doesn't contribute to mass right?) Please excuse my general ignorance on this topic, I've only recently become interested in these things and should have paid a lot more attention in high school;p. ___________________________________________________________________________________ Another question, related, but which possibly should become a different thread (I'll let the mods judge that), could you explain why water's density is highest at 4 degrees in a, conceptually understandable manner? (I've read: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-water-more-dense-at-4°C-than-at-0°C?redirected_qid=12443275#!n=12 but I find it difficult to follow + I would like to understand why the maximum of the density temperature graph is 4 degrees, what fundamental properties are behind (why is it not 5 degrees etc.), from the explanation on that website, if I leave 4 degree water for long enough without introducing new kinetic energy in a room that is exactly 4 degrees, it should eventually become ice... ?) edit: reason for my last comment regarding ice formation [From the website: "At 4 °C, the clusters start forming.The molecules are still slowing down and coming closer together, but the formation of clusters makes the molecules be further apart.Cluster formation is the bigger effect, so the density starts to decrease.Thus,the density of water is a maximum at 4 °C."] -Dagl
  14. Most of the content in this thread goes over my head (for now), but I am wondering, is his answer regarding super critical fluids not considered a distinct state (I did not see it in your list (looked up SCF but did not spot any different name presented on the wikipedia that corresponds with your given states). Apologies if I missed it! Thanks! -Dagl1
  15. @CharonY, I am not super familiar with these reactions (high school was the last time I have heard about the Calvin cycle), but after reading up on them I am wondering if I understand this correctly; 1. the light-dependent reaction (oxygen production) could occur and continue forever in the absence of the CO2-dependent Calvin cycle, if it would be efficient enough to produce sufficient quantities of ATP (2. the function for the Calvin cycle being mainly to convert unstable NADPH (+ other stuff) into (more) stable G3P which can then 3. further be utilised in respiration reactions to produce ATP and I am not entirely sure about this last part 4. but more O2 is produced than later used in respiration reactions or is the net production of O2 a result of the fact that more energy is stored in G3P than is used by the plants?) Then 5. if we would supply unlimited NADPH and ATP, the Calvin cycle could continue forever in the absence of light-dependent reactions? If my interpretation is correct, then I think I also understand the dispute regarding "involved". Thanks in advance!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.