Genecks

So, I've got some clothes, you know.. underwear, shirts, blue jeans... and I'm thinking about autoclaving them. There really isn't a laundromat near by, and I don't get paid for about 6 more days. They kind of of smell, but I figure that's just some organic chemical left over. I've read about it before, but I can't recall the molecule's name. I figure if I autoclave the stuff, then the clothes will be sterilized. I'm not sure what kind of result autoclaving would have on the fabric, but I'm trying to save some money. So, if I were to autoclave some black shirts and a couple of pairs of blue jeans, even some socks and underwear, do you think that there would be considerable damage to my clothes? It would be using steam, pressure, and heat to clean them. I've read that when autoclaving clothes, they should be put in a bag. I've also read that a bag isn't always necessary. I don't think there will be a problem, because I'll just have them in an autoclave basket. I could wet them down first and maybe autoclave the clothes as though I'm autoclaving a liquid. I'm not sure. Thoughts? Ideas? lol

... DNA is transcribed into RNA which is then translated into amino acids. So, the question here is can XNA be transcribed into RNA, which is then translated into amino acids? If I understand you correctly, RNA polymerase does not bind to XNA and transcribe out RNA. Also, I don't understand how this XNA was made nor what the molecule looks like. If someone could post a picture, that would be great.

How do I get EDTA disodium salt to dissolve and be a pH of 7.4. I tried a 0.5M solution, but couldn't get it to dissolve at that amount. So, I tried 0.1 M at 7.4, and it worked ok enough for me to get a 50 mL soltuion.

So, I'm starting to notice that EDTA is really annoying to make a solution from. I would like to make a 0.5M stock solution of EDTA, but all I have is EDTA disodium salt. I'm reading that's basically EDTA but more readily soluble. Another thing I keep reading is that I'll have to adjust the pH of the EDTA disodium salt solution in order to make the molecules more soluble, because I keep getting precipitates at the moment. I'm not sure if I can avoid changing the pH or not. If I have to change the pH, then 7.4 would probably be good and in line with the other Tris-HCl 7.4 pH solution I've made.

Well, I would like to exclude the view of the mind and stay with the brain and body, to move toward a biological view and exclude the concept of mind in this argument. It's the brain and body during its development that is suppose to program the individual to reproduce and cause genetic diversity so that DNA is allowed to continue existing. DNA has its own agenda, and that agenda is to reproduce and sustain itself in the world. And for that to happen people have to reproduce. And if they choose not to reproduce, then the choice (at least what claims to be an outward expression of rebellion against genetic design to reproduce) is illogical and against design, thus wrong, thus the individual is mentally ill. Now, I'm not saying the people are schizophrenic or going to ask you for a dollar on the street, but it's a subtle form of mental illness, or better yet, mental illogicalness. Schizophrenia, alzheimer's, etc... deal with epigenetics.. And I suspect the homosexuality aspect also deals with epigenetics.. and one might say it has an early-onset in individuals where their epigenetic makeup changes away from intended biological reproduction aspects. And, I remember someone once asked me if that means I thought nuns and priests are mentally ill, too, given that they're having outward expressions and thinking patterns of non-reproductive personalities. Then, I'm going to have to say yes. Me? Personally? I could care less, because it's so subtle and that everyone has their own quirks, it's what makes us human. I'm saying what I think from a scientific perspective, and not some moral right-wing junk. Yeah, this relates to a thread I made long ago where I attempted to explore why the American Psychiatric Association long ago considered homosexuality to be a mental illness. On a level where people just consider a person's line of thinking and little else, the claim is preposterous. But given assumptions about biological design and function, it sounds reasonable. But the hard look into genetics and epigenetics and molecular biology of it all definitely wasn't around too much when the APA was making those claims. Now, in reference to the transgender thing... I had this professor who.. just would go about animals and their sexuality. Some fish change their sex... So, if the male in the area died, one female fish would turn into a male, and that fish would start reproducing with the other female fish. Again, that there is epigenetics and biological design. It could be the situation that people aren't mentally ill but their biological design is of a mutation in the population pool.... So in terms of a male who feels the desire the be a female, they lack the ability to physically change sex... perhaps some environmental stimulus that changed the brain and its patterns of reproduction influenced the individual to desire to be of a different gender.. As the options I gave out, it could be evolution or a mishap against biological design. Again, though, since it's not practical for a human to change gender like a fish, it's going against biological design. Maybe all of this is just a bunch of genetic remnants in people from early evolutionary history, whereby the genes for changing sex are still around in some homological form, and they affect behavioral patterns of individuals. I think of the bisexuals and homosexuals i've met in life, I'd have to say that their views on why they are their particular sexuality was something that just occurred to them. And it's wasn't much of a conscious decision.

I see what you're on about, Monday. But I think for the most part the biological design is reproduction, and if the person does not think accordingly with that design, then the person is mentally ill. But this comes with the grand assumption that biological design is reproduction. It's extremely wasteful to generate a human being without reproductive capability and desire unless there is some biological aspect to that person that helps them support DNA's reproduction and existence (thus, social evolution).

Xittenn, I think you're a decent person. So, I thought I would get that out of the way before saying the other stuff. Anyway, as I've had this argument with people on this website before... I think that people who have a mentality that is not in line with their biological function are mentally ill. And... maybe they don't feel that way... and maybe people don't think it's a form of crazy... but I think it's a form of a person going against their biological design, and perhaps their environment changing their identity and personality... but then again... there's all these neurochemicals, hormones, etc.. that are different in people... as such, it could just be the situation that the epigenetics of particular individuals is different, thus that would explain why they think and feel differently than others... So, perhaps it's not that they are mentally ill, but their biological design is not to reproduce... which say some pretty odd things in terms of human evolution... perhaps their goal is to be like... like contributors to society... to be worker ants who die out... And it may be some kind of social evolution that's occurring with these individuals. I think that either people are of a design that was meant to contribute to the reproduction of particular genetic identities and makeups (social evolution) or else the individual is of a flawed design and a mistake (because the property of biological reproduction/duplication is missing). Could be mutation... Could be that eventually homosexuals will be able to reproduce with each other given a few thousand years... Again, evolution. Debatable, but I tend not to mind what other people do with their lives and sexuality as long as they don't try to rule mine, manipulate me, and push their beliefs on me. People can be jerks, but I think most people who are jerks are ignorant and have a lot of cowardice and insecurities. And learning to accept people regardless and work out issues is most important. I really don't like uppity LGBT people, though. Not like I go around saying straight pride.

Just wondering...

I remember when I took my first philosophy class. The professor drew a circle, and in that circle is what generations before us thought they knew about reality and the world. And that was called their philosophy on things. And then those things sectioned off, and turned into other things, such as science. Still remained concepts like the mental, consciousness, and the beginning of the universe. Of course, you've got a bit of a hebb diagram between science and philosophy on those, but philosophy attempts to try and understand or at least explain things. And then there is a philosophy of science, between a method and generation of fruitful theories... that our method of science may indeed someday change based on our methods for finding things and how they build upon one another. So, do I think philosophy is rubbish? No, I think it's the groundwork for many of things, such as the scientific method. But it indeed could be if you dare to consider philosophy to be the logic that binds us and prevents us from reaching new grounds based on irrationality and the power it may hold to find greater truths: Sometimes things aren't logical, and you have to use something other than logic to explain them. If you ask me if I care, though? I'll say no... Maybe the concept of the soul worries me. The Aristotlean view that perhaps.. just maybe... the body really does contain the soul... And if you did tear yourself away from it, became an awesome cyborg, then you would be a soulless robotic shell... and then comes in the philosophy of mind, what consciousness really is, and what it means to be self-aware... You have people who say that if you could take your entire self apart and turn it into a program, that program would be you. Maybe by today's logic (without logical proof of the soul), but I'll disagree with those views.

Nvm. BCA is done initially when generating homogenate and after IP'ing the protein of interest. It's useful for differentiating efficiency of initial cell lysis solutions when looking at protein concentrated of IP'd protein. - Genecks

I've been reading about doing immunoprecipitaiton. My first experiment failed really bad, not sure why. Anyway, I've been told I should have been doing BCA method quantification in order to determine the protein concentration of how much protein I have in a volume of solution. Well, I've been told that after taking tissue and lysing, I should do BCA. Afterward, do IP, but then don't BCA quantify and just move onto a western blot. Uh, why would I not want to know the protein concentration of the protein that I've immunoprecipitated out? Wouldn't that be what is relevant for observing what amount I've used in the western blot analysis?

I've recently been assigned the task of making a decent antibody for amyloid precursor protein (and perhaps something else, too). As I have been reading as of late, there is considerable demand for decent antibodies, as people don't tend to like what comes from industry. First off, why? Does industry not put enough effort into making antibodies, such as generating one generation of a mouse population to produce antibodies, thus the search for better antibodies beyond that one generation does not occur? Industry would be the social structure with enough money to improve on design rather than independent academic institutions, right? Is it that industry isn't really looking for better antibodies? The individual I'm working for at the moment doesn't seem to like the current quality of antibody on the market and being used for our research, so I've been assigned to make antibodies. As of late, I've been reading the book Making and Using Antibodies: A Practical Handbook. It seems like there are two reasonable ways to make antibodies: Mutation/radiation/conjure-code OR to inject animals with the immunogen and have the animals keep producing antibodies. It seems to me that animals that could live a long time in order to produce antibodies might be the best bet in terms of finding a better antibody with binding affinity. Am I right on this? Also, I suspect if a person was a super scientist with an insane knowledge of biophysics, chemistry, and protein knowledge, a person could just design a better antibody from code... but I suspect that would mean knowing the protein being research, and the protein being research in this case is ... the structure is not completely known... So, why do scientists think most antibodies are poor? Are they? Why?

Say I'm making a solution of 3 M KCl. I did that today. I think... Anyway, I made about 50 mL of KCl for a pH electrode solution. Now, if I remember correctly, (74.56 g/mol) / 1 L = 1 M solution of KCl 3 * "" with 1 L volume used = 3 M KCl But.. it's not that I'm adding 1 L of ddH2O, right? I put in the KCl, and I add enough water so that it appears as though 1 L of volume has been taken up by both the KCl and the water, right? So, when thinking about that 1 L of volume, I'm also considering the volume the KCl takes up.

Time-wise, yes. Funding-wise, maybe. Time-wise = being able to put in time as a scientist toward the research in order to create new knowledge and findings Funding-wise = being able to buy supplies to do the research Funding is generally the major issue these days when it comes to science. As I understand it, being a medical doctor can help keep the flow of money coming in. But with the field you have just described, there may be a good flow of money coming in: People need scientists to find new drugs to treat illness. As such, you might not want to be a MD to handle that particular kind of thing. My overall opinion, however, as of late, has been that being a medical doctor all around helps a person get ahead (despite about 6 years of life being lost to maintain wealth and status if one desires to be a scientist as the end-goal). That's just my view, though. You said you see the MD as a status thing. I see the MD as a wealth thing (it gives a person more freedom to be a medical scientist). Maybe I'm wrong, slanted, or crazy on this perception. Then again, many Ph.D professors make at least $40k a year. It's practical to join an already existing research team and contribute cash/time to it in order to help accomplish things (but many people don't do this, as they seem to be busy attempting to retire and etc.). Maybe try talking to other scientists. Sorry if I've focused too much on a Ph.D discussion. P.S. 20 credits is a lot. You will want to keep up your GPA above 3.63 for a chance at medical school; keep it above 3.5 for Ph.D grad school. The average GPA for medical school increases about .01 each year and has been doing so for the past 6 years or so. I suspect that will slow down and asymptote... (hopefully). p.p.s. The biochemistry and chemistry majors are extremely tough. Spend plenty of time with tutors, TAs, chemistry/biochem college groups (like AlChem or pre-pharm student groups or some other student group that studies chemistry), and practice, practice, practice. Definitely a tough major. Knowing what I know now, I bet I could do the major, but it sure takes a lot of effort, connecting with people (to know how to tackle the material), and sleepless nights. Many people in such majors take major hits to their GPA, thus leading them to a masters program and then a Ph.D program rather than the Ph.D program after the bachelors.

You could get into a Ph.D program after getting a medical degree. There really isn't a time limit. However, I've read on some parts of the web that as a person reaches 40... yeah... there begins to be a kind of age discrimination (but that generally applies to getting into medical school after getting a Ph.D). I would think that if you had already obtained a medical degree, then people would be willing to let you get into their Ph.D program without much fuss. Maybe if you attempt to apply to Ph.D/MD programs, you might have better chances. I suggest you apply to MD/Ph.D programs along with Ph.D programs and MD programs (don't be frugal about this application process; time is of the essence). Honestly, if you can get into medical school, I would suggest doing so. I think it's possible to do the research a person wants to do as a medical doctor. CharonY might have some disagreements here. But in my opinion, I don't see why a person wouldn't be able to actively do biological research as a medical doctor. Now, becoming a PI might be difficult or might not be difficult. In general, I've read that medical doctors, because they can make enough money, generate the ability to lead their own research teams (especially when teamed up with other medical doctors). I would suggest becoming a MD if you could become a MD. I think it's the better route all around, if you can save yourself from the debt that exists after medical school. If the debt were not such a serious issue, I suspect more medical doctors would become researchers after obtaining their medical degree. The interest rate will crush a person on a $200,000 loan debt that would need to be paid back in 20 years. Honestly, I don't know why there should and would be age discrimination in things like this. In my opinion, letting older individuals into the system suppresses the younger individuals into the system. Thus, older individuals will generally make less money than the younger individuals, thus this fact being more beneficial for doctors who have been already practicing and making money. With those economic considerations, I don't see why age should be a factor or why people would discriminate based on age. It's not reasonable. If someone wanted to make the argument that people can't think as well, remember as well, or be as critical in a medical setting or medical school due to their age, I would be more willing to accept such an argument (but a hard worker with a gift and passion for science shouldn't have too hard of a time doing it, I would argue).

Yeah, ok. So, I believe if I'm reading you right, you want to to do the following: 1. Get B.S. in Chemistry Then... 2a. Consider graduate school for a Masters in Biochemistry 2b. Consider MD/PhD program for biomedical research future 2c. Consider solely an MD program for medical science research/practice If you chose to do 2a, you would be wasting a lot of time if you want to ultimately get into a medical program for a medical degree. Some people get a masters degree in order make their resumes better or see if they really, really want to pursue that field of research or work in industry doing that stuff. I don't believe in getting a master's degree unless it's business or nursing or... maybe engineering... but otherwise, I don't see those degrees as a worthwhile pursuit for a person who does not already have an advanced degree. If you got the medical degree and then wanted a masters in biochemistry... I would suggest to do it ASAP. But I wouldn't even suggest doing it, because you would be in loads of debt of which you would more than likely want to pay off by doing residency. After doing residency and controlling your debt, you'd want to then pursue the masters in biochemistry as soon as possible. I don't think it's a good idea. But I don't know you too well. Maybe you're an heiress. If that's the case, I suggest getting the medical degree and then the graduate in biochem asap (who likes to waste time, ey?). 2b. If you chose to 2b, you would have to get a fairly decent GPA, have at least one year of research experience (start talking to professors in person now, setting up appointments to discuss you want to be in their lab, and tell them you'll be around for a few years, etc.). You'll need shadowing experience. You'll need a year of volunteer experience (medical related). You'll need to get all of this done pronto. You'll need to take the MCAT and have studied for it ahead of time. You'll need to have gotten a lot of stuff done within 12 months prior to application deadlines, including finding the MD/PhD program you want to participate in. Very tasking process and sucks a ton. Good luck. Furthermore, some medical scholars programs pay full tuition, thus preventing you from having a large debt. Furthermore, were you not to get into such a free program, consider that almost all medical students have debt anyway, which is often paid off with work and time (or skillfully evaded). And the debt is often a big factor that encourages people to complete the program. 2c. If you're just going to do the MD program, I re-iterate the above minus the need to do a year of research.

It's possible to jump into beginning level biology classes without much previous knowledge. It's a lot harder to jump into a microbiology class, though. And jumping into an advanced undergradute class doubly so. For biology, much of making a decent grade relies on review, practicing recall, and study habits. It's reasonable to take anybody and put them into a beginning biology class. You could take a high school freshman and put them into college-level first-year biology course. Much of the same material is covered but faster, and you need a good, strong work ethic and study habit. Visualization skills are also useful. Chemistry requires practice and critical thinking of the problems you're working on. As does math and physics. So, a large amount of review and practice working with problems needs to be put in. Physics and higher math requires usage of visualization of physical phenomena explain in mathematical ways. Not so easy to take a high school sophomore and throw them into a college-level chemistry class or physics class unless the kid is pretty good at that stuff already. High school is where many people start to think about visualizing mathematical ideas more often, I would think.

I was implying that, yet this website could at least maybe supply such a product. As such, I gave my reply the individual the way I did.

I'm definitely not a computational neuroscientist or neural network programmer. But from what I'm reading, it seems like your research deals with the intelligent design debate. I think you need to clearly present what your thesis is, what the goal of your research is, why it is relevant, and prove how it can either support or reject your hypothesis. I can only hope that you use strong terminology (well defined and referenced leading to little ambiguity) and definitions in your presentation of your thesis and research. If you have the philosophical background, I believe you understand what I mean. Given these things, I think your work is definitely publishable, and would be worth reading. I think being able to clearly explain your research and your thesis will allow you to go far. These are basic things I'm sure you are aware of. From there, people will just have to make their own judgements. However, science has a methodology, a grounding that ignores people's personal biases and beliefs. Alas, in science, if your thesis and research is good, people can then build upon it (hopefully). Kuhnian fruition. In an age like this, how long would that take? I don't know... People are talking about these things called neutrinos, though, so ... heh... Perhaps also discuss what the consequences of your research are if your thesis is valid and sound. I'm interested. I believe I've considered research like what you're doing at the moment a couple of times before. However, I'm too busy to give it a big read. Also, I'm kind of trying to stay up with SfN2011 blogs relating to cognitive neuroscience and neurogensis at the moment, sorry. I have been reading more about unicellular learning. Another member here, CharonY, has discussed this with me. My take is that the bias of neurons should be removed, and things need to be reduced to independent and dependent variables: A model of chemical/physical behaviorism minus the idea of the mind (a functional approach whereby things influence each other and produce an outcome). Of course, scientists are aware things reduce to this (but their just damn hard to model when talking about intelligence).

I'm looking at a catalytic cycle that uses CuI and acetonitrile to generate Cu+ ions in order to convert EDA and 1-hexyne into ethyl oct-3-ynoate via a diazo coupling reaction. I have no clue how these Cu+ catalytic ions form. How are the Cu+ catalytic ions made? I'm assuming acetonitrile breaks apart the Cu-I and forms solvation shells around the ions. But that is just a guess.

Sometimes the university's chemistry department will give out model sets on loan (just give your student ID). Ask if they have model sets. I found the model set to be useful for the first semester of organic chemistry. It was worth using a lot. I suggest you get used to using it to understand the fundamentals of mechanisms. It helps for naming molecules, also. Organic I is not hard as long as you practice the fundamentals of what you're learning and can use those fundamentals in different situations. The model may be useful on an exam if you're dead tired and can't visualize things 3D. And it may give you a sense of procedural knowledge on how a mechanism works, thus leading you to answer some abstract questions using a mechanism with similar but different organic molecules and reactants. For the second semester of organic chemistry, I used it sparsely, and it was useful on some mechanisms where I could not figure out how the molecule broke apart and then reformed (often during ring formation mechanisms). I can't recall which reaction it was. The professor was big on ring formation mechanisms. At that point, you probably just want to make your favorite organic molecule, tie on some string, and hang it from somewhere.

I'm not a physicist. Maybe people here can give you a Q&A. Add more detail about yourself, such as highest math level and what physics you have already studied.

What do you think of competing science forum websites? It would be appreciated if you could put a reply in at least two paragraphs (take time to reply if needed).