CharonY

Funny bit is that the conception of what scientists are or do in the eye of public appears to change depending on what one likes to be true. In case of vaccines all scientists (and hence the consensus) is getting paid off by the big industry, whereas in the case of global warming for some reasons the reverse is the case. Apparently scientists are involved in dozens in global conspiracies that are backed/opposed to big money. Possibly both at the same time. And no one invited me

I would not know but as ecoli pointed out, it is irrelevant. However if you want to look at the money trail how about one proven one? It should be of interest that the autism vaccine link is largely based on a fraudulent paper by Andrew Wakefield. Now who was making money here? and Ouchies http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm

Actually no it doesn't. It depends on a number of factors including e.g. initial population size, but assuming that the matings happened early in the expansion, a remnant of 1% does not account for much and looks much like neutral residues. Oh and also the expansion waves were mostly out of Africa. Even if there was a bit of a backflow the neanderthal alleles could have been lost as it would be lost in the existing larger population.

Wouldn't this be more appropriate in speculations?

Whatever it may be about, the relevance-to-length ratio is unfavorable.

One of the things I worked on was protein-DNA interaction. However, my side of the story was mostly to relate it to biological function rather than trying to improve the system. Mostly the things worked so well that it was easier just to disrupt it instead.

The authors describe their input file on their homepage. You may want to look there.

Depending on your isolation additional bands are to be expected, especially in very active tissues. For quality control one usually would check the 28/18s ratio. Very high MW bands can also be co-isolated DNA.

It depends a bit. For instance, one could find out by modeling and measurements (also note that the measurements themselves need models to interpret the results) the binding forces between protein and ligands. One could find out that e.g. certain amino acids are the major elements of the binding pocket, however modeling could predict that the backbone structure also adds to that. Then you could change the amino acid sequence of the protein and repeat the experiments and compare it with theoretical values. Ideally you could then prove which amino acids have strong interactions with the ligand (and what type of interactions) plus you would know how the rest of the protein facilitates and enhances this interaction. Ideally this model is then precise enough so that one could e.g. design a protein with enhanced (or otherwise modulated) properties. Of course things are rarely that straightforward.

I would need to more about the outcome/story of the paper to make a judgment. However, you could easily search for similar types of paper on pubmed and read the respective itoas of the journals.

Complex interactions are more in the realm of biochemists and biologists, biophysicists are mostly concerned about highly defined, small interactions, rather than complex situations that are not easily described mathematically. One major difference between biophysicists to biologists is that their approach is much more axiom-driven. This is where modeling becomes relevant. The data they produce are used to create mathematical descriptions of the given biological system (e.g. forces between or within molecules). A major challenge is often to translate that information into biological function (which was my role in those projects).

vice versa. You did not exist before it.

It is really becoming a multidisciplinary field. As a rule of thumb biophysics deals more with the small interactions, usually between single molecules. In the biophysical projects that I have conducted involves for instance force measurements between enzyme and ligands, or force measurements between subunits of a single protein. Other examples include the measurement of electron transfer between cytochromes and so on. Some biophysicists are also working with more complex biological interactions, often with more limited success. In the biophysical area quite often no standard models exist for biological systems. The experimental measurements form the basis for the modification of existing models and thus help to create more accurate mathematical descriptions. However, there is an area of overlap with protein chemistry, e.g. in the field of protein folding. Much of the work here is more often done by (bio) chemists and structural biologists. As a rule of thumb there is an increase in complexity of interactions from biophysicists, biochemists to biologists, but there are large overlaps. (I have worked on different layers as biologist myself, though I may be a bit of a special case).

ParanoiA, sorry for not providing it in the first place, but I was on another pc. Here you go http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm Swansont, you are right, if the person in question provides a driver's license, then he/she is off the hook. Question is what about other people in the car, for instance. Or whether Hispanics are now in for a higher amount of driver license checks (though honestly I do not believe that it makes much of a difference to the current situation). To be quite honest for the most parts I am actually not sure whether the bill practically gives the police much more leeway than they had before. But then I would need a side by side comparison to be able to evaluate that. The only other situation I can think of are (if want to move away from the driver's license issue) situations in which enforcement of other ordinances (as worded in the bill) may lead to a check. I think someone mentioned things like overgrown lawn or barking dogs. It could be that police is getting more involved in these cases now (which probably would not be handled by the police ordinarily). However, if the bill does not factually expand the power of the police, the question is what the reason for this bill is. Well, except gaining political favor...

A more detailed comment later but two corrections: 1)the use of the word homologous. I believe you refer to sequence similarity, however homology refers to genes that have been separated by speciation events (and this does not apply here). 2) bands are never 100% consisting of only one sequence. In fact, there are always low co-occurences of the others within the mixture. As such a re-amplification of a certain band can also result in a re-amplificaton of the rest. Depending on parameters and size event the low-abundant samples may be preferentially amplified. It would be helpful if you could list up the expected sizes vs the amplified ones for each case.

Actually they changed the wording (bolded in the quote below). While changing lawful contact to something more specific it appears to be less rigorous. The second addition probably allows background checks after stopping someone for jaywalking (as an example). So from what I understand they need a reason to approach someone (whatever it may be), but it does not need to be a criminal act, for example (which would be covered by federal law, as far as I know).On the other hand lawful stops could be a simple checkpoint, e.g. to see whether someone is driving with a valid driver's license or under influence. Then the question is what is a reasonable suspicion to trigger a background check. Technically this could be a huge loophole.

Try some Dragonwell and Oolong tea, for starters

Kilts are not skirts. They are a manly expression of being unafraid of having your balls freeze off (and thus not being manly anymore... eh).

It becomes bitter, like tea that has been too long in water. Though I think the taste with most green teas is not that bad. But I imagine black tea being pretty awful.

Technically there is little that could get out during chewing that is not released by hot water.

Trying to push through some grants to build a research group, and trying to get job interviews in parallel. ajb, good luck.

Both refer to the same gene. Initially the large subunit of nematodes was determined to be 26S, however comparisons with other organisms indicated that it should be 28s. Due to historic reasons both names stuck (as it is both a name as well as a classifier). Generally you will find older publications with 26s, newer papers that do not only deal with nematodes often call it 28s rRNA, and some compromise with 26/28s. "Real" 26s rRNA is generally found in plants, yeast and protozoa.

Pants almost always make sense. Trust me on that.

I realize that it can be fun making things up, however if one has not the slightest idea how it works one should not post in a way that suggests that it is anything but mere fantasy. Thanks.I realize that it can be fun making things up, however if one has not the slightest idea how it works one should not post in a way that suggests that it is anything but mere fantasy. Thanks. As regarding to the benefit , it is a misconception that everything has to be of benefit in an evolutionary way. Sometimes when a developmental path has been selected, there are some side issues that come with it that are not necessarily beneficial. At least part of it has to do with the bilateral symmetry of our body development. But crossing the signal itself also provides important information as exemplified in stereoscopic vision, which requires crossing at the optic chiasma. Also I think that the way the view field is split it actually reduces the reaction time by reducing the time necessary to reach the motor area of the respective body side without having to pass the pons. But I would have to draw it to recall it in more detail (it has been a long while since I last had neurobiology other than on the molecular level). Note that we are actually talking about three things here. 1) why is there a bilateral separation and why is it set up like as it is 2) what are the diverse cross-overs good for 3) what is the evolutionary history of it (note that I am not specifically arguing benefits here)

Well it still is an antigen for all intents and purposes. It is just not necessarily in the original form as detected by the B cells (though sometimes it is).