dttom

So does it mean if you take a CTL from an individual in one species then transfer that CTL to another individual in another species (simply for the purpose of triggering immunoresponse, delivering it to another individual is also okay, though of course with difference), the induced Ig should bind to what you expect to be immunodominant epitope according to your second definition? I suspect 'immunodominant epitope' should vary, for the reasons that different species should response quite differently towards the transfer, and different species or even individual in the same species would have different immunotolerance.

Yes, contradiction in budding yeast, but it remains as an open question, the mainstream is still a significant role of TFIIH in release of TFs in close-promotor initiation complex.

If you're talking about functional group you're not correct. The compound is an alkene, is an alcohol, but its functional groups are not called alcohol and alkene. You should call it containing C-C double bond and hydroxyl group. You're correct that B is a carboxylic acid, for the same reason it contains a carboxyl group.

So you assume your 'rock' is all carbon, and you pick 1ppm of course that 1ppm is a significant amount of carbon. I'm not sure, but I see your notation of '/10^12kg', will it be that there is 10^12kg rock in which 5e7kg is carbon?

Salicyclic acid besides has a significant hydrophobic benzene ring, so it won't be strange if it dissolves better in ether for it's polar, though.

The relation between standard free energy and biologically standard free energy is given by: (delta)G|biological = (delta)G|standard +RTln(10^-7) where under biological condition the pH is 7 instead of 0 (1M H3O+). I know the free energy is given by: (delta)G = (delta)H - T(delta)S = (delta)H - T(delta)S|non-mixing -T(delta)S|mixing = (delta)H - T(delta)S|non-mixing +RTln(Q) = (delta)G|standard + RTln(Q) But how can I derive the term RTln(10^-7)? I think if my biochemical equation does not have a hydroxide or a hydronium on either sides should have its free energy pH independent... Where did it go wrong? Hope someone to point out...

Glycolysis: 1) You are not wrong but I regard your sentence to be too brief; I would say it is a series of enzymatic process to convert glucose to pyruvate with the generation of NADH and ATP. 2) You should not answer like that, I feel that you are just rephrasing the description, but the question prompts you the reason, at least the answer should include ideas like making glucose inclusive inside cell, activation of glucose molecule .etc. 3) First, enzyme would not lower the activation energy, it just provides an alternative pathway with a lower activation energy, you should see it is not to compare activation energies for different pathways. Second, which is a rather minor problem, words like 'in order to' should be prevented as this might lead others to think it to be purposeful. 4,5,6) Mr. Skeptic has pointed them out. 7,8) Don't forget other 'energetic' molecules. Krebs Cycle: 3) 'to begin' is different from 'to be sustained', oxygen is the final electron receivers (final oxidant) in electron transport chain which begins with intermediates in Krebs Cycle. 4) This should be a wrong statement, it varies amongst people. 7) To be precise it should be GTP instead of ATP.

When there are some clues towards a theory or hypothesis which one is not familiar with, a better approach is trying to understand it, or at least to grasp the basic idea, if one really wants to judge if that theory or hypothesis is correct or not. Escaping from the clue couldn't help, not only could not provide something for one to support the theory, but also could not constitute a grounded negative evidence.

What will it be when you read the DNA code or RNA codon corresponding to aa#142 in wild form?

Human brains do emit wave, brain with its electro-activity hence creates magnetic fluctuation, a type of electro-magnetic wave. It serves as the source of which electroencephalography detects.

The cathode should leave hydrogen gas, and the color change you mentioned I guess it is due to metal oxide reduction by the gas.

I think he is asking why the millions of bridging forms during the gradual transition were not found. If you are to find them, certainly you will not get a living creature, a fossil instead. But as you know fossil is not easy to form, so...

You may consider the processes in RNA transcription. What is required in the process, and whether such a factor or factors is (are) removed by fragmentation of DNA?

A prion seems to be able to turn a normal protein into prion (by re-folding). So in this sense it behaves as if a replicator. Even considering it as a virus like agent would be acceptable, or to say, it does not requires a genetic basis for its propagation (not origin of itself).

Actually I am not sure. But if provided when enough time, difference between mitochondria within a cell could be resolved. Say, if, one cell has 10 mts, one of which is the mutant, so in the first round of division, one of the daughter cell got the mutant. In that daughter cell, the number of 10 should be recovered when the time for second round division came, so there is a chance for two to be distributed to one of its daughter cell. The same 'enrichment' process could undergo by chance, so as to form a mutant cell with the mutant mt fixed. Just like neutral drift.

That sounds new to me. Will this linear chromosome feature grants the bacterium any species advantage? And amongst all the species having this feature, does it imply recent ancestral origin between them (is this feature homologous?)?

Even not considering the direction, it should be able to figure it out. In DNA one chain determines the sequence of another chain by base pairing, so just ignore one of them. Now ten nucleotide pairs are reduced to ten nucleotides in a sequence, each slot gets 4 possible entries, so possible combination equals 4^10.

There is a major problem in all your questions (at least personally I think there is), it is that you assume the most primitive 'living matter' as some sort of early cell, and you are confused with issues of leaving offspring. It is a significant issue to define the word 'life', if you define the word by 'cell', then I should say that 'cell' must have evolved to leave offspring. Becasue the origin of life should not be a cellular entity. A cell is far too complex to be the earliest 'living matter' (origin of life), natural selection could work only when certain replication mechanism was found, or evolved. This is the basic requirement for natural selection to occur, so that 'living matter' should be a replicator (being able to leave offspring) per se.

Don't you think 'using tools' is a rather gross term, that 'being able to use material other than biological material from oneself' is coined? So I would say, because the term has such a wide spectrum, for it to be independently evolved should not be surprising.

I should say under the three-domain system, the term 'protist' is no longer a true phylogenetic clade, it intersperses into the group 'eukaryotes', some like choanoflagellates have closer relationship to human than even fungi, while some have more distant relationship.

Constitutive heterochromatid is densely packed chromatin (different from functional rather diffused euchromatin) which is non-function, access of transcription factors is prohabited in those regions. So, I would like to know, why they are here? Are they just another group of junk DNA pieces (will any phenotypical change be observed if mutation is directed into such a region?), just like introns? Or they are once active in the embryonic development process or the ontogeny of an individual?

Check it out from the reduction potential table.

The article said the bacteria in intestine digests cell wall and frees insulin inside cell into bloodstream. But even after the process the insulin should stay in intestine instead of being directly absorbed into blood, further digestion process should be present for intaking 'insulin' into blood. So I'm still confused of how the mechanism works? Yes, tolerance could be induced if the immunogen is present frequently, either in high or low amount, but it still needs an intact immunogen, here, insulin. And for the problem of if insulin is too small for immune response I'm not sure. If we consider insulin as an antigen, recognised as foreign by the body, why can't it be endocytosed by APC and be presented to helper T cells?

Gene therapy is still an immature technology today. But if it could be done, you will need a virus not to change the DNA of the cells which are currently contributing to the pigment color but the cell giving rise to those pigment-generating cell, in other words, probably you need a viral vector carrying the piece of DNA you desire to infect the multipotent stem cell giving rise to pigment-generating cells. Using a virus vector would have potential hazard like not attenuated enough or the process of DNA insertion might interfere with useful gene that potentially would cause some, if any, genetic disorders. To get a person with purple iris you need to infect his multipotent stem cell, then if you want his offsprings having the same traits you need another virus vector being able to cross the Weismann Barrier and infect germ-line cells. To prevent gross-infection which lowers the chance of sucessful infection and insertion of target cells and potential mutational hazards, it'd better to have a virus vector specific to that cell type.

I would rather treat it as a long punctuated equilibrium, that any mutation would be reverted by the eqm. But provided with a change in conditions, the equilibrium would shift.