CharonY

It depends on what you are looking for and what kind of database you use. Sequences for already well characterized proteins tend to be useful in most cases. However due to the automated pipelines that are used nowadays errors could still be there. Swissprot, for instance is a better curated database, yet with overall fewer sequences. As a rule of thumb reality checking with well-characterized reference genomes are helpful, especially with regards to functional assignments. But again, it really depends on what you are looking for (e.g. single protein vs whole genome analyses, intergenic regions etc.)

A warm welcome to all newcomers. Share topics that you are interested in and get started.

A welcome to all the newcomers and what is so great about tonsils?I would rather keep a spare kidney, for instance.

Well, at the moment I got my lab for me alone. But I guess I may have some grad students to teach, soon.

Severian wins. Hands down. The only thing I could show are a couple of MS. And maybe the AFM (but I have seen calculators that look like more).

I hope these are not prefilled chambers? Those are rather nasty. Cervical dislocation is usually better, but one needs some skill to pull it off (no pun intended). Actually CO2 use is getting much disputed in a number of labs.

Funny, for some reason I either never checked this thread, or did it and immediately forget it.

Demosthenes, it is not that confusing if you read carefully. In the first quote they are refering to genes. That is, defined stretches of DNA that has been annotated to carry coding information. 99% are annotated to have the same function, but may vary slightly in the sequence. In the second quote they compared whole DNA stretches (I admit, I got the issue lying around here somewhere but did not actually read it...). So in the second quote they basically say that we do not only have the same genes, but even the sequence of them is very similar (with exceptions).