CharonY

Sona, I would suggest that you check the dates to threads you are replying to. OP has not been active for almost an year.

That is not analogous as in this case the system is very clearly defined (i.e. enzyme, DNA, buffer system). In the case of the mice blood cell you have a) a more complex system and b) the idea behind it was to induce stress response in the cells. One of the responses was pluripotency. Originally, it was known from plant cells that this may occur, so it was not a matter of throwing random stuff at cells.

That is very true. Times like these call for persistence and huge deal of flexibility.

Read Phi's post again. He asked about how you are being perceive by others. I.e. he asked to try to put yourself in the perspective of others. Your answer is the same as every post you made. All about you, what you like etc. Things that you deem likeable in others are again all related to you. At best this appears narcissistic, which is very disruptive for a communicative situation. Communication is an exchange between people. That situation does not arise if you believe it is all about you.

Well, for many applications a certain amount of purification is necessary e.g. to get rid of dimers though a simple column clean up is often more than efficient. Especially if you do lots of cloning (i.e. plates) you would like to have a certain amount of purity (again, I am no fan of gel purifcations myself). Inactivation of ligases is sometimes done for electroporation. Ligase binds to DNA (which you can see as a band shift in gel) which reduces electroporation efficiency. But I agree, for heat shock transformation it is pretty much a non-issue.

If I had to guess I would have to think they may mean delusional. Or at least a very distinct lack of perspective and ability of reflection. For example:

I find it weird that it is generally accepted that drunken driving is a bad thing but the same logic is lost with guns. How about drunken chainsaw wielding in public...?

Whether there is an association between meat an osteoporosis or not, the proposed mechanisms (acidification of blood) is unsupported. Severe acidosis of the blood generally only occurs if there are other indicators (e.g. renal failure, diabetes) and not due to diet. However, diabetes and renal issues can impact calcium homeostasis and result osteoporosis. The idea that an increase of pH in blood directly leaches Ca out of bones is a very naive view on calcium metabolism and homeostasis and is a big warning sign that the author is just making things up. Mind you, diabetics do benefit from certain diets, as it can for a variety of reasons. But it does not mean that the proposed mechanism makes sense. Finally, the studies on protein and osteoporosis are association studies and the findings are inconclusive (there are studies that show the opposite effect), if you look across literature, but that has already been mentioned.

And the nice thing is that we do find (as expected) that the audible ranges scales with body size, though sometimes certain anatomic tricks (as swansont mentioned) to enhance ranges. It should be noted the audible range is not even and higher amplitudes are needed at the extreme ranges to be perceived. But to give some values that I have handy all in (Hz) mouse: 1000-91,000 rat: 200-76,000 dog: 67-45,000 horse: 55-33,500 Elephant: 16-12,0000

It is not a very insightful question but one could tackle it from a different viewpoint. The question would be: what would be the relationship between those two? One problem is that probably the selfish gene analogy is poorly understood when one states such a question. But by taking a step back one might try to frame it better.

It is telling that you completely fail to recognize that Ophiolite mentions qualities except technical competence (whatever they may be) that in his view would disqualify from getting it. If his perception does not correlate with what you wanted to convey, then I would also polish communication skills.

I try to understand cellular activities by abusing, poking and teasing apart cells and their contents. I also develop new methods to do so. The area of research could be described as systems biology with an emphasis on high resolution omics.

I was under the impression that it is based on a scenario outlined to Lawrence Krauss. Maybe it would help to provide a transcript to outline the (I assume) hypothetical scenario?

As mentioned above, hiring is generally done within the scope of a position (e.g. research scientist, faculty whatever) and not on a project basis. There are positions with high turnover (postdocs for example). In that case the hiring is still usually for 1-2 years and after fulfilling a particular project, the PI is free to put him/her on another one (or work together to put new proposal together).

I have honestly no idea what the context is. Take on board for what? What position(s) are we talking about? What kind of perversions? A position that requires some kind security clearance would be more strict than in a public uni, for example. If the perversion is watching naked ladies on the internet I would not be concerned unless the person decides to do it during work. If the perversion is cannibalistic in nature, I would be somewhat concerned. But I agree with chadn737, I do not see how being a scientist would be any different than, say, a plumber, if context with regards to the job is unclear. The last post seems to be even more confused than the first one. If pressed, my answer would be fish and chips and a stout.

That is the part for glycolysis. Now you need to find the reactions for ethanol fermentation.

Agaricus should not be able to utilize agar (i.e. liquefy it). I wonder, does it grow on V8 medium at all? I was under the assumption that it does not prefer acidic conditions, but I could be wrong. I believe malt extract is more common. Arc, just so you know, agar has been used as a polymerizing agent specifically because there are not so many microbes around that are able to hydrolyze it.

Well if you can neglect detail structures (which are incredibly hard to figure out) then it is fairly easy by looking at the description. I.e. you can essentially make a rod (basically an elongated tic-tac add a peritrichous constellation of flagella et voila, E. coli. There are illustrations of the bacteria around that are usually easier to interpret. For viruses there are reconstructions based on X-ray chrystallographic studies you could look at. In your place I would check out well-studied model bacteria and viruses and check out textbooks (or maybe just google) them. There are probably decent representations that you could copy (rather than trying to interpret raw images).

The description of the event seems very weird to me. But putting myself in the position of the prof/teacher I would have: Depending on the tone of the student provided suggestions of how to proceed with an academic career (less likely based on the description). If threatening I would call in next-door colleagues as witness and asked to repeat yourself and advised some counselling. If just disruptive I would kick them out of my office.

I have taken quite a few images of bacteria using SEM and AFM, but I do not about a real depository. You should be aware that EM and similar images provide a very artificial view on the bacteria and fixing processes create a lot of artifacts and are by definition static. There are these nice 3D images in false colors, but in truth there is often not more detail that you can reliably extract from them as things that you already know (e.g. rough morphology etc.). If you are interested in motility you are much better of looking for literature that show videos (e.g. with fluorescently tagged key proteins). Classic images that you should find easily are the Che-dependent chemotactic movement of E. coli , swarming motility in Myxococcus etc. Alternatively you could take a look at different flagellation. There are of course also EM images of those but they tend to be 2D. See example here . AFM is another method, but they usually have lateral elongation and if cells are fixed, certain artifacts pop up again. You should also know that viruses have no motility to begin with, they rely on passive transport. What I am trying to say is that depending on what precisely you want to show, EM images may not be quite the thing to go for as images, especially 3D slices are somewhat tricky to interpret.

Yes there is. You will have to look up the metabolic steps involved coming from glucose and ending with ethanol (there are variations, though, check the one for Saccharomyces). Then look at what you got and figure out what the limiting concentration is. That will determine the maximum yield.

In a naive approach I would look at proteome changes between treated and untreated cells. Assuming that the metabolic changes are restricted to mitochondria, one way is to isolate them (e.g. using density centrifugation), and then do MS-based whole proteome profiling (e.g. LC-MS/MS and/or 2DGE followed by MS). Another option is a metabolom based analysis (e.g. GC/MS based), though I generally find proteomic interpretation more straightforward (a combination is also possible, but more costly, of course).

A) I hate you. B) I have got LCMS and GCMS data to substantitate differences between stale and fresh coffee. C) I am no addict, I can quit any time. D) STOP JUDGING ME!!!

Actually, if you have even decently freshly roasted coffee and a good grinder, grinding yourself does preserve taste better and allows to adjust the grind to your extraction method. The guy who manages to convince people that Folgers and their ilk is coffee at all (instead of scantily painted wood chips) is a genius, though.

On a slightly related note, I wonder how a debate between Ken Ham and a Catholic scientist such as the Jesuit astronomer George Coyne would have gone.