CharonY

Do artificial cat brains dream about computer mice?

Emotions come in if one is on the receiving end, I presume. Say, you got cancer and a 100k treatment will be denied as studies suggest that it will prolong your life for only a week or so. Or if a DNA screening shows that you got an allel which makes you unresponsive to said 100k treatment. Logically one could say that it does not make sense, but if one is desperate it is much harder to do so.

I am sorry, but I do not get the point of this post. In health care there are of course cost-benefit studies that are often a basis for standard policies. One of the problems with the cost, of course, are end-of life treatments. I recall that the majority of health care costs are generated (obviously), and it is here where most cost-benefit analyzes turn ugly. For instance, there are certain treatments that go for around 10-100 k per treatment cycle but on average only prolong life for around 2 weeks or so. Question is whether such treatments should be denied or not. Similar questions arise for certain screening approaches. Recent studies for instance show that PSA screening for prostate cancer do not increase life expectancy (but increase overtreatment). And I have heard similar for mammographies. But in the end, for a number of treatments such studies are there. Arguably there are not enough due to the cost involved in performing them (oops yet another cost factor)...

First one is the major point although the last sentence is incorrect. The -10 to -35 region is the sigma factor binding site which does not equal the promoter region. The second is not a real issue. The mRNA of eukaryotes are also only transcribed by one polymerase species. The important bit is that each polymerase needs specific factors in order to interact with specific promoters. The thirds is also a good point. The fourth less so. The slight differences in some bacteria compared to animals may result in translation error but it does not necessary abolish the protein synthesis. However, the points mentioned above will be prohibitive for proper transcription so that translation would not occur in the first place. If we assume that those problems are corrected there are even more problems during the protein synthesis parts.

Iron-fisted dictatorship, provided the fist is mine.

Underlining is used instead of italicizing for handwritten , but not for typed notes. Unless you got an old typewriter that does not do italics. To be absolutely correct however it would be Genus sp. as sp. is only an abbreviated placeholder and not a species name.

Ouch. Knowing about MSDS is not really helpful. Rinsing won't harm (unless your school does not conform to safety regulations that require regularly testing and cleaning of the system) but if by now your eye did not react it is unlikely that anything will be happening. Still, do not take my word for it as I was not there am not a medical professional yadahadaha, don't sue me, I am only a spambot.

If it was sulfamic acid at any significant amount you would have reddened eyes at the very least. Eyes are pretty sensitive against corrosives and irritants.

If you did not feel anything it is probably nothing to worry about too much. Two things I have to comment on, though. If something managed to hit your eye while wearing goggles than they do not fit you. Get others. Also, if you think something got into your eyes use the eye washing station. Of course you are familiar with the MSDS of your chemicals, right?

The problem is that the DNA helix has to be "unzipped" by a helicase. The enzyme essentially moves along the DNA and separates the two strands. If you follow the point of the unzipping, it is easy to note the difference between the 5-3 and 3-5 strand. More precisely, the lagging strand can be most easily defined at the actual replication fork (the part where the single and double stranded DNA meet). The whole bubble itself is of no consequence for that and maybe even a bit confusing. If you look at the pic above just look closely on either the left or right end, near the fork (and ignore the rest). There you should see why in one direction it is lagging.

Almost too detailed, but important points. Although one could always wonder whether a EST was cloned or the native gene... I'll move it into the homework section for now.

You will need to find more info on the agar plates. What medium does it consist of? All agar plates contain nutrients, but the question is what precisely do they contain. One guess is that at least one is LB (containing tryptone, yeast extract and NaCl). It is a very rich medium and quite a number of bacteria, including E. coli and Salmonella. Especially with the latter I'd be careful, though. The thing is, everything will have bacteria on it. The question is only whether it will grow on the medium presented. Also the question is whether the teacher wants you to know what to expect on any given foodstuff (quite tricky) or what will grow on a given nutrient plate (a bit easier though only with a limited view).

Bacteria living in milk are usually acidophilic. You should take care to use a suitable medium.

Apart from the poor phrasing, let me ask a question back at you. What would you need for a gene to be expressed in a given organism (in this case, bacterium). Based on how the question is phrased I assume it is a theoretical or homework question. If it is really supposed to be a troubleshooting question, well the question itself needs some reworking as there is something definitely not right.

That did not raise any eyebrow among the students. I am not sure whether that says more about them or me.

There are a number of bacteria, including Shewanella, Geobacter, Anaeromyxobacter just to name some, that at least can reduce uranium (VI) into a less soluble U(IV), which may be more amendable for clean-up strategies. Of course as with other dissimilatory reduction pathways the electron acceptor is not consumed as such, but merely reduced. One problem with microbial fuel cells in general is that in order to create electricity they require (among the usual nutrients) an electron donor. In many cases this is acetate. This, in the end, is rather inefficient as feeding a fuel cell with them would be far too expensive. Using waste, is of course a nice to circumvent the cost problem, but that has some issues, too. One of them is that they already have their particular microflora which are generally not that efficient in generating electricity, but will outcompete those that are. The second is the abysmal efficiency. These are partially the result of energetical limitations of the available biomass. I think the article also refers to a paper by Lovley in which they isolated (not engineered) a Geobacter strain that was more efficient in fuel cells with acetate (not waste) as electron donor. In short, a interesting topic, though there are limitations to overall efficiency that are most likely not possible to overcome due to physical constraints. At least not if we think in the direction of large-scale energy production. It is more interesting to think in the direction of bioremediation, though.

Phi, I suggest that next time we should run, waver our arms and scream incoherently. Great exercise and it may obscure the fact that is no immediate threat. In fact, with some luck others will join in. For now, excuse me, I will have to give a lecture and I have not screamed myself hoarse yet.

Let me ask something. They have high RNA contents compared to what? (Context, context, context...)

What is the question directed at? The physiological role of sporulation or the regulatory cues derived from starvation?

NEB? As in the company new england biolabs? No offense, but if you are really interested in it I would really recommend some basic cell biology books first rather than trying to piece together information from various websites, manufacturers of enzymes etc. I assume that your major interest in in the field of bioengineering. A major roadblock, however, is the lack of our understanding of how even basic processes interact within a cell (an much less between cells). The field tends to be super-specialized due to the complexity of even apparently trivial interactions. Cell cultivation is one field on its own and while often being a prerequisite of genetic works, it tends to harbor different questions. If you are really interested again, I would refer you to the basics and then build up specific questions from there. At this point your questions are not focused enough to be able to guide you in any direction. If you have specific questions regarding a given technique (molecular biological or cultivation technique), it may be more useful to start a separate thread for each.

Unfortunately much of it is based on some misconception as to what the mechanisms may be involved in, say horizontal gene transfer or symbioses. I have the feeling that the basic assumption of this thread is to create GMOs capable of the feats described above which, as it is, is still in the realms of science fiction. The understanding of cellular processes still only allows us a limited prediction as to what certain genetic changes will result in overall phenotype of a cell, much less of a whole organism with the exception of a limited number of well known pathways. For instance, using reverse genetics to create a microorganism that produces a higher amount of certain substances (as e.g. amino acids or vitamins) is generally rewarded with limited success (as e.g. compared to screening for organisms that do it naturally). Is it possible to dream of a chromosome sequence and stitch together a DNA molecule? Yes it is, but dreaming of a some complicated phenotypes and then create such an organism is still far from possible.

Uhm, horizontal gene transfer and symbioses are quite different things. Unless one wants to go down and discuss quasi-symbiotic relationships of mobile genetic elements (like viruses) with their hosts. And just btw. Agrobacteria hijack plant tissues and lets them produce opines.

As Mokele said. Also research on genetic data from individuals fall under general ethical guidelines for human research subject which are aimed to protect the research participants. It is, for instance necessary to anonymize genetical data so that it is impossible to track back the respective individual from which individual the sample came from.

It depends on what you have available for sterilization. Ideally use an autoklave or a heat sterilizer. Though your question implies that you do not have access to any of them. But if you get access to anything sterile it is probably easier to use that instead. Sterile Q-tips could also work. The key is really not consistent strikes but rather the ability not to make too broad ones. But starting with a low enough dilution even that is not an issue. Just make broad strokes on around 1/3 of the plate (just to distribute your sample) then draw out a single line from the end of that area. Then continue to strike it out into a free area of the plate. Then start from the end of that strikes and continue.

The point is that LPS elicit strong immune responses and thus inflammatory responses.