CharonY

It is just a pain if you write reports though. I do have a US keyboard but I like to swap it to German for this (and some other purposes). But I understand your concern of potential misunderstanding.

I am wondering whether there is actually a way to calculate alpha and beta errors of these diagnoses.

I was confused on your insistence of nucleation as an essential part of multicellularism as in the posts above already counter examples were given. You start off from some viewpoint that you apparently have but do not care to elaborate and string questions out from there. For example, what is the difference between an acellular and a unicellular organism (in your words). In short: multicellular organisms can arise by incomplete separation, or the reverse action: fusion of different cells. For both there are examples. And it happens both in eu-as well as prokaryotes.

Read again. I am saying that multicellularism is not exclusive to eukaryotes. Meaning that in the absence of nuclei (what appears to be one of you central points, if you cared to elaborate) there can also be multicelluarism. I have no idea why the existence of syncitial organsms should contradict that. Would mind to spell out your theory in a cohesive way or should I start guessing your thoughts? I have the feeling that you see a distinct line between multi and single-celled life, which is not correct. Edit: I think I may get your point. You mean that partial cell division is another means of formation of multicelluarism? Yes it is. Is it the only way? No it isn't.

Technically you are correct, of course. However, in many informal exchanges µ is often replaced by u. It is btw. one of the advantages of the Germany keyboard layout to have a µ readily available .

I have no idea what your argument is. Especially given the fact that nucleation only arose in eukaryotes (obviously), whereas multicellular structures are already found in prokaryotes.

I am still in the dark what the question is, however an experimental setup is generally not that complicated as each hemisphere gets the info from the same field of vision. That is, the right field of vision is controlled by the right hemisphere and vice versa. And one does not really need to use spoken language for these tests. It is possible, for instance to have the patient write things down or point things out. The interesting bit is that they can only do so with the same hemisphere that detects it. In other words, everything seen within the left field of vision can only be described/pointed out/etc. with the left hand/foot as both are controlled by the right hemisphere. The patient does not perceive it as two inputs, though.

Nope. Those organism are very diverse, include pro- as well eukaryotes. As such they are found in a variety of environments.

Also it is a regulatory mechanism. Single cell organism can divide and proliferate basically endlessly. However, within a larger multicellular organism this will cause detrimental effects as manifested in tumors. In the end it is likely a trade-off.

What is a noncellular organism?

Not necessarily. Or rather, rarely. The multi-cellular state is usually an endpoint of sorts. In case of myxobacteria the spores then form independent cells again. The multicellular fruiting body, however exists merely to form the spores. Also in other similar forms of primitive multicellular stages the fused cells tend to differentiate to specific jobs and subsequently lose their individual free-living capabilities.

Worse, it is dependent on the proliferation of the cell from which you look at the telomere. I am not aware of any marker that can be used to precisely track the age in blood. It is however possible to distinguish between neonates and more adult individuals by tracking the expression of specific fetal proteins/genes.

Essentially you are asking about the evolution of the multi-cellular state? There is quite some literature out there, if I find the time I can check if I can find a nice review. I think much research has probably be done on volvox. However even in a few bacterial species there are multi-cellular states. For instance during nutrient stress Myxococcus xanthus forms elaborate fruiting bodies in which spores are formed. It is likely that initially multicellular stages have evolved in otherwise free-living cells to overcome certain stress or to gains specific selective advantages.

Uhm. In that case I think the starting capital will be the biggest problem. And then go and hire people to do it...

It depends on whether you want to do basic or applied research. In industry you rarely develop new compounds but concentrate on modifying existing ones in terms of delivery, pharmacokinetics, etc. Most of the people I know with R&D jobs in the industry have degrees in pharmacy.

Rarely. First, depending on the community the endproduct of organic precursors are often other organic compounds, as e.g. acetate (unless complete oxidation to CO2 is possible). Second, in most cases metabolic byproducts create unfavorable conditions that inhibit bacterial growth before every last bit of originally present organic components have been metabolized. Essentially it depends on the total amount of organic components present in a given medium- if the amount is very low then total metabolization is more likely.

Well this cannot be easily answered as milk is a complex matrix consisting of water, proteins, sugars minerals and fat. So it is unlikely if not impossible for all components to "vanish". Now regarding the souring. In lactose free milk you still have the sugars (galactose and glucose, due to lactase treatment) as well as amino acids that can be utilized by bacteria. Depending on what pathways they use they can and will produce a number of acids (most likely commonly, acetate).

There are other forums?

Ow. I always thought that the Simpsons episode in which they attached a regulation about flight corridors to a puppy bill was satire. I did not realize that it is how it really works... I guess the Simpsons are really a documentary after all.

I would go for Child-eating Communists. Short and to the point. But isn't the whole notion just outright silly. I mean, to even bring it up?

Incorrect as already addressed above. A cell does not necessarily has the same age as the organism as a whole. In addition to telomere length certain epigenetic modifications have also been associated with cell aging.

Yes of course, hence my limitation to complex traits. You can only predict with a given accuracy if you know in which pathway(s) the manipulation will interfere. If you see some recent high-profile examples in the press it tends to be very simple things, like glowing pigs, for instance (introducing a foreign protein that is not suspected to interfere with anything). However in many cases the roll of a die approach (as you call it) is also done. For instance in cases of genes with unknown function. Mind you, this is mostly done in simple systems as e.g. bacteria or yeast. One would then simply screen the mutants whether one sees an effect in which one may be interested in (and discard the majority which shows unexplainable results or results that are of no interest for the screen). Again, the overall possible change due to genetic manipulation is, of course, depending on the pathway(s) that you interfere with. The main problem is that often the pathway(s) are not known a priori, or only a part is known. This is one of the reasons why it is very hard to create superperforming bacteria. If these manipulations would result in predictable results our production capabilities with genetically engineered organism would be much higher. Especially if one considers that most involve very well known pathways. However the truth is that the majority of high-performers (that I am aware of) were actually acquired by other screening wild-type strains or by random mutation and selection (i.e. non-directed manipulations). In other words our knowledgebase for directed genetic engineering is overall still low and it is clear that more accurate predictive models are needed to simulate interactions. This is one of the reasons of the rise of bioinformatics.

Not necessarily (depending on precisely what you mean with interfere, I may be misunderstanding you). But the selectivity for specific ions or any other compounds of a cell depends to a large part on cell activity. Once a cell dies it becomes porous and diffusion rather than osmosis occurs. Just to summarize: osmosis is a passive process, but it requires a semi-permeable membrane. The membrane of most cells is essentially porous, it possesses numerous channels, porins etc. that are large enough to let ions through the (hydrophobic) membrane. However, while the cell lives it also exhibits a selectivity of the ions to maintain certain gradients, for instance or a certain homeostasis for specific ions. Under this condition osmosis can occur. Once a cell dies, however the active processes cease and will be superseded by diffusion. Edit: If you meant whether cells control osmosis, then yes, depending on cell type and up to a certain limit.

Syntax error?

If you did that, which I doubt, it was probably one of the more stupid things I heard for a while. If anything grew, how would you know that it was a pure culture and not something else completely?