CharonY

Considering that we are having a lot of troubles of validating biomarkers for about anything, trying to associate weak linkages of certain sub-populations with something as complex as e.g. intelligence is a rather ungrateful endeavor.

Also, the basketball coach would determine suitability according to actual size, not due to genetic markers. Even if genetic markers are known, the size prediction is going to be less accurate than, say,actually measuring the size.

In cases of pygmies there is definitely a strong genetic component and clearly identifying these could be a good predictor of size. Nonetheless, it also depends on how homogenous the population is, which usually correlates somewhat with degree of isolation. Note that genetic disposition does not necessarily equal the phenotype. Also note that phenotypes are not easily linked to a certain genetic make-up. At best there are strong correlations (but rarely with a mechanistic linkage).

I am pretty sure that carbon cages are meant and not diamonds. I.e. fullerenes or derivatives thereof that have surface modifications that enhance binding and uptake by cancer cells coupled to a drug payload. However, they basically increase the affinity towards cancer cells relative to healthy cells, but it does not mean that they do not affect healthy cells at all.

You may want to google targeted drug delivery for details.

This is a bloody old thread. Note that for the effective use of grass or wood as food source for higher eukaryotes (including arthropods) a consortium of bacteria and protists are involved.

Well, the phenol extraction step is used to get rid of proteins. Another, longer, way to do it is to do protease digest and salt it out. For the latter NaCl also works.

Other, non-chemical methods include the use of filters or dialysis and affinity columns.

Eh, just realized, if you are more interested in joining a group as opposed to leading one, not getting a PhD would be much better.

This included e.g. analyst and technician positions (both in- and outside academia).

I know only a handful of people working in pharma companies personally, but it appears that they have mostly pharmacist rather than MDs involved in drug design. The ones I know of do the clinicals.

Drug design in uni setting is somewhat different from pharmaceutical companies. Usually, the majority of the development money goes into the trials rather than into drug research. Also basic drug design is done only to a more limited extent within the big pharmas.

Pandering to what one believe is ones strength can be dangerous if too narrowly defined. At the undergrad level (and to some extent this also goes for the grad and postdoc level) the perspective on the actual job be too narrow to be able to actually judge where ones strength may be. Also, if the interest is strong enough one is bound to become good at it. One has to realize that the actual job later on may require a completely different skill set than acquired in grad school, however.

Eh, I though I posted something but apparently lost it.

In short: there are not many pure research institutes around that do basic research. In applied areas MDs are involved in clinicals but I am not aware of much else. Joining a group would is not a permanent job but more akin to a postdoc.

Dual degrees are often tricky business and of limited value (not yet clear how that is going to work out).

PIs themselves are too much subject to grants to be able to employ someone for a bit of random reserch (that does not have the prospect to be fundable). Also it is important to realize how the work looks like post-graduation.

Just a random link towards that:

My link

If you want to do research in a uni setting, an MD won't open more doors, but rather different ones. You are limited to certain types of research. My MD collaborators are basically all involved in epidemiological effects or are put on a grant to "provide expertise", i.e. they function more as consultants rather than researchers.

However, a research path in unis generally involves getting tenure. For that you should familiarize yourself early how such a path look like. Also realize that not more than 25% of the PhDs (and less MDs) will end up in such a position.

1) Evolution is basically the change of allele frequency in a given population. Only under certain conditions (e.g. under the so-called Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium) evolution will stop. Hence, it is ongoing also for humans. What some of the posters may mean is that certain selective forces may be diminished or change. Others (as e.g. sexual selection) may be of higher importance than others.

2) Generally not. What you describe is basically Lamarckian inheritance and for the most part it does not happen. However, there is a limited area which may allow certain acquired traits to be inherited. But this is certainly more of an exception rather than the rule.

3) Nature operates in a continuum. There is no real cut-off in nature and while categorizations can make sense for certain aspects, it is always to a certain extent arbitrary. Some categories are better reflected, some worse, but none is perfect.

I think what was meant was the turnover rate of the enzymes themselves. E.g. protease activity that, in turn, can modulate other enzyme activities.

I had regulatory roles in mind, but yes, that is another good example.

Not precisely meaningless. In contrast to radioactive decay biological degradation is highly dependent and controlled by the circumstance (e.g. presence of nucleases, medium, etc.). It is not a material constant. But the turnover rate can be of high biological relevance.

Just a little update: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Stabilisation_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_2003111.html

There are boatloads of protocols. I assume you want isolate chromosomal DNA? I would recommend a look into Sambrook: molecular cloning for them, if you got access to a library. Purification of nucleic acids from proteins is often used via phenol extraction. The DNA is then pelleted and rehydrated with a Tris buffer.

A photometer can be used for purity control. However standard agarose gel will not allow a size determination of chromosomal DNA. It is far to big for it. An alternative is pulse-field electrophoresis.

Actually, it depends on what aspects of tissue engineering you are looking at. Individual mechanisms (e.g. proteins) pertaining to adsorption and cell-cell interaction are closer to molecular biology or chemistry, however in the broader and areas cell biological and cell cultivation knowledge are higher on the list. Other elements include biomaterials and biomechanics and, especially for the applied part, medical sciences.

Indeed. Persisters usually rise when AB treatment is discontinued. IIRC the presence of ABs and other stresses actually promotes the formation of persisters.

Simplified there are three aspects to it. First, the mathematical principles and generalized modeling principles, second the models that have been developed in the frame work of one systems theory or other and third is software development to do the numerical calculations.

I am doing mostly the second part (i.e. looking and adapting existing models to my research questions, usually by using or adapting existing software/code) to supplement certain aspects of my research. While the first part is certainly best to build a solid foundation I am too much experimental to delve into it too much. If you want to develop novel approaches it would certainly help (but it would be rather ambitious).

I can provide lit for applied approaches and models if you could provide information what you are interested in. I am less suited to evaluate basic principles.

All I can say is that of the physics I know and facts I can verify, I only had one quibble with the post, that he called control rods moderator rods. That doesn't jibe with my navy experience.

Excellent. The blogpost was nicely written for laymen like me to understand, though with my knowledge I could not easily validate accuracy.

The quake and tsunami are devastating disasters that need international help. The problems with the reactor(s) are rather less important yet they seem to be the focus of attention.

Except from a microbial standpoint the toxin argument does not matter as what counts as toxins for us often can be considered food to them. The major issue is the chemical instability of arsenic bonds and the biological importance of phosphate bonds. A simple exchange would be incredibly tricky physiologically.

Regarding appleseeds, unless crushed only a limited amount of cyanide will be released from the seeds during normal digestion. While technically correct, it would take quite a bit to be lethal. A few other food sources would be more efficient. It is somewhat well-known that rosaceae produce cyanide compounds, btw.

For biological molecule usually the complete turnover is considered. Here usually also active inactivation of the molecule by e.g. other biological molecules counts against the stability/activity of the molecule. This is a major factor of mRNA decay, for instance.

We are unable to create an absolutely novel virus from scratch. We can, however use existing viruses as template and create recombinant versions. Essentially this is accomplished by standard mutagenesis. Normally a host system is required for production and propagation, though.

More neuroscientists (and journalists) wetting themselves

I would like to draw a more stronger distinction regarding journalists and neuroscientists.

Basically you are correct. If several parameters are tested it it would be more appropriate to adjust for multiple hypothesis testing. Since the number of tests factors in exponentially, it is usually not appropriate to neglect it. In practice it depends a little bit on whether they really did multiple hypothesis testing. Something that often done is ANOVA f-test followed by the mentioned post-hoc t-test. If the latter only includes two samples (e.g. the groups with the biggest means difference), it does not require adjusting, of course. However, if every combination is tested, adjustments are necessary. A number of post-hocs do control family-wise errors, though. In the end, it depends a little how the authors explain and interpret the data.

It should be noted that there are quite some papers around that fail to account for multiple hypothesis testing, though it depends a bit on the field, whether they caught up to it. Especially in molecular biomarker papers many still fail to do it.

I get the impression that this is to justify getting funding, not because the researcher necessarily cares that the application exists. Just my hunch being in academia now.

Of course. That is what I meant with the difference of basic science that use justification to frame a context and actual applied science that try to develop a finalized product. Between both is usually quite a sizable gap.

As well as funding sources, btw.

Good article on the events

 

https://morgsatlarge...clear-reactors/

I have no idea about the real background, but this is odd http://geniusnow.com/2011/03/15/the-strange-case-of-josef-oehmen/