CharonY

The question is do you need a biosafety cabinet, a clean bench, or a fume hood? Bioafety cabinets are mainly for the protection of the user (laminar vertical flow). They also give a degree of cleanliness (due to HEPA filters) but user protection is the primary function. Fume hoods are an even better protection as it actively sucks in air from the front, away from the user, but they introduce more dirt into it. And finally there are clean benches. The do not protect the user at all, in fact all the stuff gets blown into your face, but due to a clean horizontal flow your sample gets better protection from contamination. Some of the fancier cabinets have a combined vertical and horizontal flow, though. However, neither biosafety cabinet nor clean bench are suitable as a fume hood substitute. Though with certain exception there is no good reason to use a fume hood for bacterial cultivation. It is quite complicated to keep things sterile there. But yeah, if your concern is sterility a clean sterilized glovebox would be a cheap alternative. Also it depends a bit on your bacteria. Fast growing buggers like E. coli and similar that are BSL1 can also be easily cultivated on a clean benchtop while using sterile techniques. Working near a Bunsen burner also helps. The latter is especially important if there is a risk that your lab has spores of some kind around.

Well, yeah. Cancer is just a radical manifestation. One question is what you mean by expression. Mutations in non-coding areas are also an option. In fact, cancer can also be associated to mutations in regulatory (as opposed to coding) regions. Both are in principle detectable (e.g. by highly parallelized hybridizations or direct sequencing) though take quite time and effort.

Or moved into a given gene pool by horizontal gene transfer.

Fast responses are not our strength. It is odd, however, that anyone should explain IEF without explaining isolectric points (pI). There are a number of ways to do that (with varying accuracy) according to the pK of the amino acids. And right there is the hint you need. Second hint, the pI is the point where the net charge is zero. That being said, just by looking at the peptides I find it unlikely that that one of the peptides is actually in the high basic range. Check up on the properties of the listed amino acids and you will see what I mean. If you are interested in following that up, read Bjellqvist, B.,Hughes, G.J., Pasquali, Ch., Paquet, N., Ravier, F., Sanchez, J.-Ch., Frutiger, S. & Hochstrasser, D.F. The focusing positions of polypeptides in immobilized pH gradients can be predicted from their amino acid sequences. Electrophoresis 1993, 14, 1023-1031. Edit: I misunderstood the post. I assumed that you did not had heard about pI, but apparently you had it for AAs already. In any case the precise determination for whole proteins is a bit trickier. However, knowing the pI of the AAs will give you a good hint what to expect from the short peptides. One problem is, however, that the presented peptides are so short that most predictions will be off.

To be honest, I have no idea. At least I did not consciously came across one. Of course, even if I did, I would probably ignore it as I usually always tend to have a long backlog of (original) papers that I have to read. Sorry.

More likely iron hydroxides.

It is hard to prove a negative...

If you prefer something in the line of scientific american, Science (the journal) is most likely not for you. They publish original research in a relatively wide area, but it is not that readable for the layman. Also it is not an unofficial science journal but one of the top tier ones (the infamous CNS).

Minor irritations and for some vaccinations even mild fever is not that unusual, vaccines are stimulating your immunization after all. Usually they should not persist for a long time, though. Also note that eve under normal conditions your body gets a lot of nasty stuff. Constantly. That is why we have an immune system in the first place. Again, as others have noted, many if not all of the scare stories are isolated incidents, that may or may not related to vaccinations at all. If enough people are vaccinated you will simply by chance have a few that e.g. die by car accident. Obviously the vaccine will not be the cause though. Maybe GDG has some nice data to share on this subject?

And it is unlikely that a general answer can be given as the reasons for each group to accumulate DNA may be very different, depending on their history. In some cases the presence or absence of certain selective pressures (or combination thereof) may be part of the explanation. Also genomic parasitism is an interesting element here (especially for non-coding elements). Likewise more mechanistic approaches including considering cell size and metabolic activities have been proposed. As already mentioned, this is still under investigation. However, from my little corner of academia it seems to me the overall interest seems rather limited. Mostly because the elucidation of mechanisms of genome evolution are probably more interesting than trying to get an overarching explanation (which possibly does not exist) to explain a (for some) contra-intuitive phenomenon.

The thing with science based discussion is that they should be based on established facts. What you consider as a matter of semantics is in fact a severe misunderstanding of some of the basic concepts of evolution. This, for instance, is clearly wrong. As others pointed out, evolution does not happen in a vacuum. It is the result of the interaction of a population (or individuals thereof) with a given environment. Where you go wrong is thinking that the environment directly tinkers the genome of the individuals. This is not the case and it is not merely a matter of semantics. However, depending on the environment, certain individuals will propagate more efficiently than others. This is the very core of natural selection. If there was no influence of the environment there would essentially only be sexual selection, which, as already pointed out, is merely one of a number of mechanisms. We encourage everyone to educate themselves, or to ask specific questions on a given subject. But we will not encourage wrong assumptions. You are entitled to make statements, but we will point out errors. In the end, this is how one learn things. I am sorry, but science is not an opinion.

Just to reiterate: this form of transport utilizes gradients across the membrane. For instance, if the outside of the cell is more positive than the inside, the resulting electrochemical gradient allows a passive influx (ie without ATP consumption) of positive ions into the cell (within certain limitations). I think this part is clear, yes? The case you illustrate is that of an antiporter, in which one of the substrates follows the gradient thus facilitating the move of another against it. The binding to carriers does not usually require energy. The step requiring it is the confirmation change of the transporter that moves the substrates. Again, in the case of the antiporter the flow with the gradient powers that change.

You mean the tar pit between the chain saw guy and the axe lady? I saw that from a mile away.

Shouldn't someone have asked "common indicator of what?" Red cabbage could also be an indicator of diner... Learning how to ask question precisely is also a valuable skill.

There will be a single difference, though.

Teflon (PTFE) is quite good for use with corrosive substance (I use piranha solution, for instance), though nickel plating also works well. From the same supplier as above: http://www.2spi.com/catalog/tweezers/blunt-tip.shtml But you may want to check out other clean room suppliers, for instance. Alternatives are the "generic" lab suppliers as VWR or Fisher.

This depiction is rather unrealistic. At least unless the paper accepted sign is actually a concealed trap.

I am not sure about the length you may need but for wafer etching I use these guys. http://www.2spi.com/catalog/tweezers/wafer.html

Without reading the paper I of course do not know what the authors concluded, however your answer is a bit.. how to put it... hollow and generic. I assume that the specific points touched with the article are meant. Scientific articles are usually based on hypothesis and have specific aims (e.g. providing evidence for said hypothesis or use that as basis to generate more evidenced-based hypotheses). Usually the abstract as well as the discussion section gives important clues what the main arguments in the paper are. The fact that ants kill of plants is merely an observation, or a result. The important bit is into which context do the authors put it. You said it is puzzling, the question is, why is it puzzling? What is the hypothesis that states that it should not happen (otherwise it would not be puzzling but expected)? What is the consequence (as denoted by the authors)?

And we all know which part, right? Though I am impressed that that part can use complicated words like "monogamy".

Reading... hard.

Nonsense. I argued against it. Read the posts again. And the post above mine. Read up what quote tags are. The two-fold cost of sexual reproduction is a known fact to anyone even remotely familiar with evolution of sexual reproduction. In fact, it follows common logic. If you really want some reference read, go get some wikipedia article. Alternatively, try that for starters: Arkhipova IR Cytogenet Genome Res. 2005;110(1-4):372-82. Wright and Finnegan Curr Biol. 2001 Apr 17;11(8):R296-9.Click here to read There are also a number of reviews around, though I won't look for them, given the fact that chances are low that they will help you understanding the issue. Also, try to get the Futuyma. Then we can talk.

Chemglass has drawings in their catalogs, maybe they got them online, too.

JillSwift is being nice. The bottom line, however, is that this forum is not a personal sandbox in which you can put in some random thoughts of yours. Read this http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=59&a=13. I have pointed to obvious flaws in your arguments and you resort to tantrums. I did choose to ignore you because evidently I am less patient than Mokele. Mokele (repeatedly) counterpoints your arguments and you start getting personal again. Please revisit your arguments and address his points, otherwise you are just stating personal opinions without any value.

Well, kind of. The catholic church has officially issued no conflict of evolutionary theory with christian belief insofar as the accept the age of the earth as well as the existence of evolution. Interesting it also kind of rejects intelligent design up to a certain point. They still want to hog emergence of life, though. It is kind of ironic that in Europe generally the catholic church is the more conservative body (as compared to the protestants), whereas in the US the the roles appear to be reversed.