CharonY

Dude, explain why a polymer is a code if it codes for nothing? Where is the connection between code and replication? It looks like you use it synonymously.

Adequate for what? I only got 32- I only got 32- I only got 32

Well, but the majority of arguments are only true for eukaryotes, no? Well transcriptional regulation inhibits/enhances the formation of mRNA. So that would not matter. What is true is that the large amount of other regulatory mechanisms that work on the mRNA level would not work anymore. Well in theory it could commence the same way as it would with mRNA: multiple translations starts.

Depends on the protocol used to create them. There are roughly four different basic protocols (and dozens of variations) for CaCl2 competent E. colicells (I assume that is what you meant). With the faster protocols cells tend to lose competence at -20° within a day or two. But unfortunately even with the more elaborate ones they will gradually lose competence. Depending on initial quality it can be easily within a week, or a month at most. Of course, if you transform with pure plasmid even with largely incompetent cells you might score a few cfus.

First of all, the Gram stain is targeted at the peptidoclycan of bacterial cell wall. As sperm cells do not have a cell wall, they should not be specifically stained.I am not too sure what you think the problem is. Do you mean that they only isolated E. faecalis despite the fact that a Gram positive stain was shown? Ecoli, it is customary to make a counterstain after the decolorization step (wow I still remember that from my undergrad days). If it is also made here one should again see the Gram negative bacteria (pinkish vs the dark blue/purple of Gram positive).

This is not the definition of the genetic code. The code are essentially triplets coding for an amino acid. And the code is not inherent to the DNA per se, but depending on tRNA. If the tRNA gets changed (either in its anticodon region or by loading with a different AA) the code becomes changed.

I said Pak Choy. Gonna try that with someone else, though.

granpa, he is talking about the vegetative system, not about hemispheric control.

This is very common, actually. It depends a bit on the change, of course. A physics major transferring to biology, is for instance rather rare (though I have seen it happening as well as the reverse). Changes within a discipline, especially at least remotely related fields (as the examples you have given) happen all the time. Generally one does not expect an undergrad to be awfully specialized. Important bit are that you know very well what you did as an undergrad. That is, you have to be able to explain what your project was about, your particular role in it. Also you should state why you are interested in joining the particular group. Enthusiasm is generally good, though it depends on the supervisor whether you score positively with that. It is important to show that you are motivated, though. A bit knowledge on what the group is doing is good, read a couple of their papers and suggest (not too strongly) what especially interests you. Usually the criteria for PhD students are not as strict in the academia as compared to industrial positions. After all, you are willingly turning yourself into cheap labour Also academia is a bit of a special place. You do not have to have a "polished" presentation of yourself. It is important that you show interest. The real important bit is that it should not be a question and answer kind of interview but at some point you should try to get into a scientific discussion with the guys. Either about your research (though in all honesty few are deeply interested in undergrad research, except to find out whether you really knew what you did) or, even better, about the research that is happening in the group. In interviews (with candidates, that is) I usually try to spot those that are over prepared and try to knock them off-balance a bit, to see how they recover or try to involve them in a discussion in a totally unrelated scientific area, to see how they are thinking. That is more important than testing for memorized knowledge, for instance. But again, do not take it too harsh. Academia interviews are usually very benign and not that critical. Unless of course you cannot put two sentences together regarding your bachelor thesis or if you show no interest at all in what the group is doing. All in all PhD positions are (relatively) easy to get. Only getting a specific one might be a bit trickier (obviously). Even then, there is always a chance to get a stipend or something similar (depending on eligibility).

It was not a real ear, just cartilage.

Sure there is. I have not commented whether a distinction into six kingdoms actually makes sense or not, because afaik in most text books you will find the 5 or 6 kingdom classification. Mokele or other on this forum that deal more with taxonomy will likely be able to give more insight into this. E.g. Cavalier-Smith proposed in the 90s a system in which bacteria and archaea form one kingdom again (Bacteria), and the others are Protozoa, Animalia, Fungi, Plantae and Chromista. It actually resembles somewhat earlier classfication schemes (at least superficially).

Why, do you think, are archaea less complex than bacteria? Do not be confused by the name, it has historic reasons.

Well, it depends what you want to do with them and also what kind of proteins they encode. So, for instance you would chose a different system for membrane proteins than for soluble ones. Also it is a difference if you want to overexpress and purify them or if you want to have them active in the host organism, which requires a stricter control of protein expression. Also the host selection defines whether your protein gets folded and/or modified the right way etc. In general, if you want to have them active in vivo, you should choose a host which is close to where the originated from. That is whether it is eukaryotic or prokaryotic, mammal or yeast, etc and either use a vector that has an appropriate promoter or integrate it into the genome. If you want to purify the protein it really depends if the protein in question requires special folding, co-factors and/or modifications. Again, your question can only be answered if you specify your problem. To DrDNA: Nice overview over a cloning experiment, however if sequences are known nowadays most would rather start with a PCR rather than purify DNA and then cut it. And clean-up (PCR or restriction) would either be done with spin-columns or agarose gels. PAGEs are only really necessary for distinction of very similar length fragments but cloning can be a major pain. Just some nitpicking

AFAIK there is little (published) information regarding the influence of estrogen (or lack thereof) on male pattern baldness. The main player was identified to be DHT. In female baldness, however, the ratio between estrogen and androgen may be important. Essentially yes. In males FSH plays a different role. It is involved in spermatogenesis but does not contribute to estrogen levels. That is a different aspect altogether. It is reasonable to assume that estrogen levels will have an effect on hair growth, but again, this is not the contributing factor to male pattern baldness, nor is FSH connected to it. Again: the reaction in question is that an enzyme, the 5 alpha reductase converts testosteron into the more potent DHT. Finesteride block the reductase and thus inhibits DHT synthesis. That's all.

Which three genes? Technically you can clone any gene into any organism. By adding the right promoter you can even express them. The main problem, however, is to get a functional protein out of it. So basically you require the right promoter, the right recipient and a bit of luck. The cloning process itself is pretty much the same (DNA is just DNA, after all). If you are interested in protocols I can recommend: "Miolecular cloning" by Sambrook and Maniatis. If you want to know whether it has been done already, you would have to indicate which genes you have in mind.

Yes, however if you use a very cheap cycler be careful regarding condensation that may occur. Some are not that spill-proof as they should.

I had problems but in my case they were related to Thinkvantage tools as well as the vista firewall. The only problem that persist after unistalling said tools and turning off the firewall (I had Comodo running and for some unknown reason the vista firewall turned itself on, despite the fact that I turned it off earlier) is that if I lose internet connection at some point (e.g. dropped off wireless) and reconnect, the browser becomes unresponsive until I restart it.

Resistance is fertile *syntax error in line 3*

Not enough info regarding the zombies. E.g. if it is not supernatural we can assume that they need some kind of energy or that they need some structural integrity to function. E.g. how about moving into an extremely hot region? Zombies outside should dehydrate rapidly, as they appear only to drink blood anyway...

IIRC the current consensus was that archaea and bacteria share a common ancestor.

Are you referring to PCR products? That is, your finalized PCR? If so there is no problems with that. If it is only o/n you can also store it at 4°C, especially longer products are less likely to get damaged that way.

Still depends on how transmissible the zombie-agent is. Zombiefying the ocean might be a bad idea. Also a question might be, how long they have to burn to become "inactivated". Normally you die from suffocation rather than burns, I guess. But how about zombies? Also, if it is human specific, can't we train all meat eaters in our local zoo to hunt them down? Of course it may cause other problems later on, but one thing at a time. I shall start by training colibris.

Especially if the info is wrong. Or at least it is given here in the wrong context. As you mention Propecia, which acts on male baldness, I have to assume that you are talking about male baldness. FSH only stimulates estrogen production in ovaries. In males FSH acts on Sertoli cells. While it is known that it is involved in second messenger pathways their precise role in spermatogenesis was still unknown (at least when I was an undergrad, things may have changed a lot). Secondly male pattern baldness cannot be protected against by high estrogen levels. Of the androgens DHT has been identified as to be detrimental for the follicels and Propecia acts by blocking a reductase that converts testosterone to DHT. Not by blocking testosterone or any androgen itself. The basis for males is therefore (AFAIK) overexpression of the ype II 5alpha-reductase, coupled with a highe sensitivity of the follicles against DHT. Again, Mokele was correct, at least with respect to males. In females I recall that baldness might occur due to an imbalance of androgen/estrogen ration. In that case FSH might play some kind of role.

No, these are elements of classic ethology. It would help if you gave a little more information about what precisely you would like to know more. I have to admit that have not been dealing with it since my undergrad times (simply because I found out that in that field there was hardly any funding ), so what I remember might (or is likely) to be out of date. Though it appears to me that you are interested mainly in the basics. Just to add, ethology is of course related to neurobiological aspects. When I studied there was a big effort to find correlation between behaviour (patterns) and neurobiological activity and changes. There was some progress in a group using song learning in zebra finches as a model (was a fun time, btw. catching zebra finches that escaped the cages, or simply had no intention of singing when being watched...), but funding at that time kindof dried up. Also, imprinting and conditioning are forms of learning that work differently though (and are effective under different conditions), whereas fixed action patterns (FAP) are a behavioral sequence that may or may not be triggered by learned cues. Traditionally it was believed that FAPs are completely innate, however I faintly recall that while the pattern itself may be rigid, the trigger might in some cases be modified. Other argued that it would not be a FAP at all in that case.

There is of course more to that. What is considered as beauty will be overlaid with a lot of cultural background, however there are some things that work universally. However, "hardwired" is the critical part here. If we only consider a genetic basis then you need at least two components: -first: genes that result in something that we describe as beautiful -second: genes that make us feel attracted to those carrying the first set of genes, so that we perceive them as beuatiful You will have noticed that while a number of things associated with beauty can be objectively measured like symmetry etc, the concept of beauty in general is also down to perception.