I think the removal of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War goes a bit beyond "coolness factor". That is real change; I remember the Cold War and the fear. I remember when my Dad first told me about The Bomb. I was eight. I could hardly sleep for a week. "Mr Gorbechev, tear down this wall!"...THAT was beyond simply being "cool".
No doubt there has been more change in the past 113 years than there has been in the last 30 years. It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to arrive at that conclusion, and I don't think any rational person would argue with you.
I guess my point is that I think that the next 113 years will yeild much more change than the last 113 years. Instead of pooh-poohing the change in our own short lifetimes as compared to the change seen in a century, we should recognize and appreciate how the world around us changes today. When the Wright brothers flew, most people thought that was simply "coolness factor" (or whatever the slang of the day was). Most people thought little of it. After all, they had balloons to get up in the air if we wanted to, so what's the point of this noisy thing? Same sentiment for the automobile. And the steam engine.
Computers are probably not the best examples of the revolution, they are now more of a rapid evolution, and they have exsisted in some form for more than 50 years. Revolution in our times? The net, the genome project, the end of the cold war....more?
Vaccinations do work against bacteria. There are effective vaccinations to tetanus and H. influenzae (distinct from the influenza virus), for instance. There is also an antrax vaccination.
"Military grade" anthrax refers more to the degree of milling than the strain (finer milling makes a more potent weapon), and fairly robust antibiotic treatment is needed for any respiratory anthrax infection.
I think most of "being a nerd", or at least a persecuted nerd, is not so much being smarter than average, but acting or feeling that smarter == better.
I fit the nerd profile in HS, I hung out in the BBS's, tinkered with all things electronic I could find, went to space camp, read and read and read. Read the whole Dune series in one summer, and I had already read them all once before...really nerdy stuff. I was not once stuffed into a locker (ours were too small).
I was smarter than most of my classmates, but I knew that that fact didn't make me better than anyone else. My nerd friends got the crap kicked out of them frequently; they seriously believed that their intelligence made them superior to the jocks, I think that was the reason for the beatings. You can't hide that from people. And the popular kids/jocks aren't that stupid. Just like any other pecking order: If an underling seems to challenge someone above him, he is put back down. If he can't fight back, he remains down.
I wasn't popular, not by any stretch of the imagination. But I wasn't persecuted, either. I even seemed to garner enough respect to stop some of the persecution of my friends.
Of course, being a 6'2 freshman probably didn't hurt too much.....
You use more air from your tank because of the depth/pressure. Your oxygen consumption speeds up because you use more air. Each breath takes more exertion; the air is denser and is more viscous, so it takes a lot more effort to breathe. Ever notice how, on those 30m+ dives your chest hurts afterwards? That's the intracostal muscles; you normally hardly use them, but the density of the air at 30m gives them a workout.
This is not, of course the only reason. Increased O2 use is also often due to apprehnsion over the depth, darness, etc. You also use more because a 30m dive is usually colder than a 10m dive. Cold dives are always more strenuous.
Hyperbaric treatments are based on increased O2 dissolved. Burn victims suffer from hemolysis, and can't trasnsport O2 in the normal way. Increased pressure helps this. Infection with gangrene & similar bugs is dependent on an anoxic environment.
Diving deep to cure a hangover? I have no comment......but I've (ahem) heard it works. I have no idea why though. Cold dives have the same effect.
A good portion of food waste is (by weight) cellulose. Cellulose is simply a polymer of glucose, put together in such a way that we (and all other animals) can't break it up into its monomers. Bacteria can do this; if you have a bug that leaves the glucose alone once it is made (these engineered bugs exsist), this would be highly efficient. All it would take is homogenization (i.e., big blender) and perhaps some purification.
There are ways you could do this that would use very little energy. Imagine a biomembrane seperated tank; in the membrane are facilitated transporters for glucose. On one side is pure water, on the other is water with bugs in it. Add your homogenized crap to the side with the bugs, and the glucose will flow into the other side with no further energy input. Just change the tanks every now and then, and concentrate the side with the glucose (ultra cheap method would be to set it in the sun to evaporate the water).
In a far away land, there was a lake with three kingdoms on its shores. In the center of the lake was a coveted island. For centuries, the kingdoms had fought over it. One day, they decided to have it out.
Each agreed to send its best knights to the island, where they would duke it out in a free for all to settle who owned the island once and for all.
The first kingdom was very rich, and sent 100 knights, each with two squires. The night before the battle, each knight drilled, ate, boasted and celebrated as the squires cooked, polished armor, cared to the horses, and sharpened weapons.
The second kingdom was not as rich, and was able to muster only 50 knights, each with one squire. The night before the battle, the knights drilled, ate, boasted and celebrated. Each only had one squire, so they had to polish armor, too. The squires sharpened weapons, cared for the horses, and cooked.
The third kingdom was very poor, and could only send one knight and his squire. The knight took care of his armor and drilled as the squire prepared dinner, tended to the horse, and sharpened the weapons. To save time, he had to hang the cooking pot high over the fire with a noose.
The next morning, the knights of the first two kingdoms were too hung over from the celebration to fight. The third kingdom's knight was too tired from preparing for battle. None of them could fight, so the squires had it out. The battle raged on through the day and into the night. After the dust cleared, and the sun rose the next day only the lone squire from the third kingdom remained, tired, injured, near death, but victorious. This only goes to prove...(brace yourselves)...
The squire of the high pot and noose is equal to the sum of the squires of the other two sides.
I was skeptical about this at first, as well. But there is a bit of logic to it (just a bit). If it is warmer earlier in the year, it is possible for the pups to survive when born earlier. Typically, animals that are born prior to the last freeze don't have a good survival ratio. If the last freeze comes earlier in the year, pups born at earlier times have a better chance. It's logical, but there are holes.
It is possible that this is a response to warming, but not an evolutionary response. Perhaps the squirrels mate earlier due to increased temperature. Also, this would be an easily saturable effect. Plants don't bloom in response to temperature, they bloom in response to ammount of sunlight. Since the Earth's tilt is still the same, the plants will still bloom at the same time. This means the pups may be alive & toasty warm, but with little/no food in the early stages of life. This would yeild smaller (or no) adults
Although you are correct that evolution does not have a purpose, it does occur in response to change in the environment. It does not have the "intent" of adapting to he environment, but that is what winds up happening.
Besisdes, this is probably popular media exaggerating a scientitst's claims again. I haven't read the real paper, but I would wager that the scientist worded things in less absolute terms. He probably said it appears to be due to global warming, or was strongly correlated with increased temperature.
This is not a first on the whole, only a first with human cells. The technology has been around for a long time (by molecular biology standards), and really isn't all that difficult, exceptionally tedious, but not very difficult. This just represents its first application to human stem cells, as opposed to mouse, rat, etc.
The guy points out that the genes responsible for graft rejection could be eliminated; this is problematic. First, it gets complicated when you try to remove several genes at once. Normally, if you want a mouse that lacks two genes, you make each knockout seperately, then breed them to get a double knockout. Second, some of those genes are the ones necessary for the body to recognize that a cell is infected with a virus or has become cancerous. Probably not a good idea to get rid of them.
Another point made is that this could bypass the moral issues surrounding therapeutic cloning, by allowing us to use the exsisting lines. However, these lines will not last forever, they are only good for a few passages, so the supply is quite limited. You still have a supply problem. The basic science aspect is great; I can think of three or four experiments I'd like to do with the technology right off the top of my head....
Yes, it had to be conserved, you're right. Barr formation takes place in the embryo, and the same chromosome was inactivated in every cell. The information does survive past the cloning process...I wonder what the signal is.
If it holds up, that would imply that there are changes at the sequence level associated with the formation of Barr bodies. The Barr structure should be destroyed during the donor DNA preparation, and if the information is conserved, the information may be in the sequence.
Of course, one X had to be inactivated regardless, so you'd have to know which one was in a Barr body in the donor in order to know the circumstance was duplicated.
You could establish it by cloning CC several times; If >>50% of her "offspring" had the same coat, that would suggest a conserved change.
Why on Earth would they expect that? Behaviour is clearly influenced by environment.
No! Behavior is clearly influenced by genes!
Wait....maybe both are right? Maybe one thing can be influenced by more than one other thing???? What a revelation! Nature doesn't beat nurture or v/v. That implies that they compete, and that is as big a fallacy as the belief that evolution has a goal. The two may oppose each other in a few things, but only by coincidence (e.g., genes for fast growing hair in a guy that joins the Marines). The two simply combine to mold traits.
These style of figures are useful, looking at which groupd pays the most tax is mainly irrelevant what is important is how much tax each person pays as a percentage of their earnings
While I disagree with you that this is more important, here ya go....
In 2000, the bottom quintile paid just over 5% of total income. The highest quintile paid 27% of total income. These are not numbers based on the US sliding scale tax rate, but on effective tax rate. The % number is (taxes paid)/(total income reported). Reported income includes all income prior to deductions.
The source here is a conservative website, so there is, of course, a significant chance of bias. I reccomend checking out the CBO (I didn't, yet), which is the cited source of the data. They provide the URL.
There is only an income tax
and capital gains, estate, gift, employment, and excise. If you include state level taxes, you also have the various sales & property taxes. There are even federal sales taxes; gasoline, tobacco, & alcohol.
As for elimiation of tax on stock divdends, that's not just for the rich. I have stocks, and I'm poor. It's nice to have your money work for you, for a change.
Actually, it is the creator that is more valuable. The organizer is simply smarter and more observant. He recognizes the value and capitalizes on it. Those who create typically get a lot of enjoyment out of the act, and from seeing others enjoy their creation; that is how they envision their reward. Organizers view money as their reward, and act in a way to get it.
Creators seek the reward of fame and "making the world a better place". Organizers seek money. Later, when money is made, the creators bitch about not getting any of it. It's tragic; they deserve the money for their hard work. The reason they don't get it is a lack of foresight on their part.
The power should be in those people's hands. However, the RIAA is not among those people. They do not create things of value, they help distribute and promote those things of value created by others. They are angry because there is now a true competitor. As long as I'm in "woulda shoulda" mode, the creators should be the ones that directly benefit the most from the propagation of their work. In the RIAA model, this is not the case. Now, I'm not saying P2P is the best thing for the artists in the world, but it is a helluva lot better than what the RIAA does to them. P2P may screw them out of sales, but RIAA screws them out of sales and places draconian contract obligations on top of them.
It's a US House of Rep report, based on IRS data. To sum it up, those that make more than $300k/yr pay 37% of all income tax collected. Those making less than $27k/yr (50% of US population) pay less than 4% of all income tax collected.
Looking at the numbers, and defining (for the sake of argument) "middle class" as the middle third, I'd say that the middle class pays less than 15% of all income taxes collected. (Numbers rounded in my post, exact numbers in link)
Well, if by "sitting on assests" you mean stuffing cash in your sofa cushion, then yes...you do not incur any taxes. However, if you do anything else with it (such as put it in a bank with interest, buy real estate that increases in value, buy stock, etc) you DO incur taxes on the increase. One could also assume that the money in the cushion was taxed upon its earning. Personally, I'm glad the govt doesn't tax what's currently in my wallet.
As a side note, IMO, the thing keeping people poor is themselves. I say this as a poor person (literally...we have 2 kids & qualify for WIC). I am poor now because I was stupid in the past. I will not be poor in the future because I have learned from my mistakes. Learn the time value of money, and what the terms "asset" and "liability" really mean (no, not the m-w definition, the P&L definition). If you learn that, and act on it, you won't be poor for long.
There are obviously other things that affect GAPDH activity, and it's periodicity. Their conclusion seems logical; there are transcription factors that are governed by the oxidation state of NAD(H) and NADP(H) referenced in the paper, and there are elements for these factors in the GAPDH promoter (again, according to the paper). By altering the period of the activity of NADPH-Ox, they have altered the balance of NADPH/NADP in a time-dependent manner. As a result, the activity of the transcription factors mentioned could affect the transcription of GAPDH.
In specific answer to your question, they don't conclude that it is the pacemaker, they conclude it is a part of an oscillating network (of coursem they don't say a small part....)
what does "the rythm of the proteine" mean anyway?
A truncation on my part; meant to say "the rythm of the protein's activity"; i.e., the period of the activity switch. (There was once a program out there that would take a protein's primary sequence and translate it into MIDI. So maybe that's what I REALLY meant....)
I also agree that is deserves a bit higher position based on the conclusions. It's just that their experimentaion was a bit light. It's not even a 3.5 page paper, including references. They only really did two models (NADPH activity in 3 variants and GAPDH activity in two variants). IMHO, in order to get Science, they need to go a bit more in-depth.
Just got a chance to read the paper. Interesting stuff, but preliminary. They show that the protein maintains a rythmic shift in activity that is independent of outside factors. However, if they change the amino acid sequence of the protein, they can alter the period of the activity switches.
They correlated this acitivty (NADPH-Ox) with a second acitivity (GAPDH) that is known to be regulated by some circaidian means. They did two mutations. Both affected the rythm of their protein. One mutation affected the GAPDH activity, but only one one period (They didn't mention the other one; probably had no effect; the assay is a smiple one). GAPDH activity follows two periods, a major and a minor one. This protein seems to affect the minor period. This does have an overall effect on the GAPDH activity in the cell, but probably by only affecting one period. There is something else controlling the second period
So, this is a clock, but not the clock. There seem to be at least two, probably more. The reason this didn't get Science or Nature is because it's still early work; they need a bit more data to get a tier one journal. Besides, Biochemistry ain't chopped liver. It's a nice journal to get into.
For the biochemists out there, I do mean GAPDH activity, not GAPDH levels. Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase activity is what is measured as the circadian effect endpoint. NADPH oxidase acitivity is the monitored activity of the enzyme of interest.
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt there has been more change in the past 113 years than there has been in the last 30 years. It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to arrive at that conclusion, and I don't think any rational person would argue with you.
I guess my point is that I think that the next 113 years will yeild much more change than the last 113 years. Instead of pooh-poohing the change in our own short lifetimes as compared to the change seen in a century, we should recognize and appreciate how the world around us changes today. When the Wright brothers flew, most people thought that was simply "coolness factor" (or whatever the slang of the day was). Most people thought little of it. After all, they had balloons to get up in the air if we wanted to, so what's the point of this noisy thing? Same sentiment for the automobile. And the steam engine.
Computers are probably not the best examples of the revolution, they are now more of a rapid evolution, and they have exsisted in some form for more than 50 years. Revolution in our times? The net, the genome project, the end of the cold war....more?
Vaccinations do work against bacteria. There are effective vaccinations to tetanus and H. influenzae (distinct from the influenza virus), for instance. There is also an antrax vaccination.
"Military grade" anthrax refers more to the degree of milling than the strain (finer milling makes a more potent weapon), and fairly robust antibiotic treatment is needed for any respiratory anthrax infection.
Sorry about that, dude. Really, I wanted to stop them, but I was voted down. I did bring you burn cream, though, remember?
I fit the nerd profile in HS, I hung out in the BBS's, tinkered with all things electronic I could find, went to space camp, read and read and read. Read the whole Dune series in one summer, and I had already read them all once before...really nerdy stuff. I was not once stuffed into a locker (ours were too small).
I was smarter than most of my classmates, but I knew that that fact didn't make me better than anyone else. My nerd friends got the crap kicked out of them frequently; they seriously believed that their intelligence made them superior to the jocks, I think that was the reason for the beatings. You can't hide that from people. And the popular kids/jocks aren't that stupid. Just like any other pecking order: If an underling seems to challenge someone above him, he is put back down. If he can't fight back, he remains down.
I wasn't popular, not by any stretch of the imagination. But I wasn't persecuted, either. I even seemed to garner enough respect to stop some of the persecution of my friends.
Of course, being a 6'2 freshman probably didn't hurt too much.....
You use more air from your tank because of the depth/pressure. Your oxygen consumption speeds up because you use more air. Each breath takes more exertion; the air is denser and is more viscous, so it takes a lot more effort to breathe. Ever notice how, on those 30m+ dives your chest hurts afterwards? That's the intracostal muscles; you normally hardly use them, but the density of the air at 30m gives them a workout.
This is not, of course the only reason. Increased O2 use is also often due to apprehnsion over the depth, darness, etc. You also use more because a 30m dive is usually colder than a 10m dive. Cold dives are always more strenuous.
Hyperbaric treatments are based on increased O2 dissolved. Burn victims suffer from hemolysis, and can't trasnsport O2 in the normal way. Increased pressure helps this. Infection with gangrene & similar bugs is dependent on an anoxic environment.
Diving deep to cure a hangover? I have no comment......but I've (ahem) heard it works. I have no idea why though. Cold dives have the same effect.
Ok, so when the asteroid hits, you and everyone else that doesn't fly will be just fine. The rest of us will die.
Oh, yeah...at sixty, you're like, practically at death's door. Who cares if you die then? You're practically dead already, right?
There are ways you could do this that would use very little energy. Imagine a biomembrane seperated tank; in the membrane are facilitated transporters for glucose. On one side is pure water, on the other is water with bugs in it. Add your homogenized crap to the side with the bugs, and the glucose will flow into the other side with no further energy input. Just change the tanks every now and then, and concentrate the side with the glucose (ultra cheap method would be to set it in the sun to evaporate the water).
Each agreed to send its best knights to the island, where they would duke it out in a free for all to settle who owned the island once and for all.
The first kingdom was very rich, and sent 100 knights, each with two squires. The night before the battle, each knight drilled, ate, boasted and celebrated as the squires cooked, polished armor, cared to the horses, and sharpened weapons.
The second kingdom was not as rich, and was able to muster only 50 knights, each with one squire. The night before the battle, the knights drilled, ate, boasted and celebrated. Each only had one squire, so they had to polish armor, too. The squires sharpened weapons, cared for the horses, and cooked.
The third kingdom was very poor, and could only send one knight and his squire. The knight took care of his armor and drilled as the squire prepared dinner, tended to the horse, and sharpened the weapons. To save time, he had to hang the cooking pot high over the fire with a noose.
The next morning, the knights of the first two kingdoms were too hung over from the celebration to fight. The third kingdom's knight was too tired from preparing for battle. None of them could fight, so the squires had it out. The battle raged on through the day and into the night. After the dust cleared, and the sun rose the next day only the lone squire from the third kingdom remained, tired, injured, near death, but victorious. This only goes to prove...(brace yourselves)...
The squire of the high pot and noose is equal to the sum of the squires of the other two sides.
OK, you can shoot me now.
It is possible that this is a response to warming, but not an evolutionary response. Perhaps the squirrels mate earlier due to increased temperature. Also, this would be an easily saturable effect. Plants don't bloom in response to temperature, they bloom in response to ammount of sunlight. Since the Earth's tilt is still the same, the plants will still bloom at the same time. This means the pups may be alive & toasty warm, but with little/no food in the early stages of life. This would yeild smaller (or no) adults
Although you are correct that evolution does not have a purpose, it does occur in response to change in the environment. It does not have the "intent" of adapting to he environment, but that is what winds up happening.
Besisdes, this is probably popular media exaggerating a scientitst's claims again. I haven't read the real paper, but I would wager that the scientist worded things in less absolute terms. He probably said it appears to be due to global warming, or was strongly correlated with increased temperature.
The guy points out that the genes responsible for graft rejection could be eliminated; this is problematic. First, it gets complicated when you try to remove several genes at once. Normally, if you want a mouse that lacks two genes, you make each knockout seperately, then breed them to get a double knockout. Second, some of those genes are the ones necessary for the body to recognize that a cell is infected with a virus or has become cancerous. Probably not a good idea to get rid of them.
Another point made is that this could bypass the moral issues surrounding therapeutic cloning, by allowing us to use the exsisting lines. However, these lines will not last forever, they are only good for a few passages, so the supply is quite limited. You still have a supply problem. The basic science aspect is great; I can think of three or four experiments I'd like to do with the technology right off the top of my head....
Yes, it had to be conserved, you're right. Barr formation takes place in the embryo, and the same chromosome was inactivated in every cell. The information does survive past the cloning process...I wonder what the signal is.
Very cool observation.
If it holds up, that would imply that there are changes at the sequence level associated with the formation of Barr bodies. The Barr structure should be destroyed during the donor DNA preparation, and if the information is conserved, the information may be in the sequence.
Of course, one X had to be inactivated regardless, so you'd have to know which one was in a Barr body in the donor in order to know the circumstance was duplicated.
You could establish it by cloning CC several times; If >>50% of her "offspring" had the same coat, that would suggest a conserved change.
No! Behavior is clearly influenced by genes!
Wait....maybe both are right? Maybe one thing can be influenced by more than one other thing???? What a revelation! Nature doesn't beat nurture or v/v. That implies that they compete, and that is as big a fallacy as the belief that evolution has a goal. The two may oppose each other in a few things, but only by coincidence (e.g., genes for fast growing hair in a guy that joins the Marines). The two simply combine to mold traits.
My apologies for the sarcasm.
While I disagree with you that this is more important, here ya go....
In 2000, the bottom quintile paid just over 5% of total income. The highest quintile paid 27% of total income. These are not numbers based on the US sliding scale tax rate, but on effective tax rate. The % number is (taxes paid)/(total income reported). Reported income includes all income prior to deductions.
The source here is a conservative website, so there is, of course, a significant chance of bias. I reccomend checking out the CBO (I didn't, yet), which is the cited source of the data. They provide the URL.
But that is only when it comes out of my wallet. Virtually any time money changes hands, it is taxed. If it does not move, it is not taxed.
As for elimiation of tax on stock divdends, that's not just for the rich. I have stocks, and I'm poor. It's nice to have your money work for you, for a change.
I wouldn't put it past them morally. Intellectually, perhaps, but not morally.
Creators seek the reward of fame and "making the world a better place". Organizers seek money. Later, when money is made, the creators bitch about not getting any of it. It's tragic; they deserve the money for their hard work. The reason they don't get it is a lack of foresight on their part.
The power should be in those people's hands. However, the RIAA is not among those people. They do not create things of value, they help distribute and promote those things of value created by others. They are angry because there is now a true competitor. As long as I'm in "woulda shoulda" mode, the creators should be the ones that directly benefit the most from the propagation of their work. In the RIAA model, this is not the case. Now, I'm not saying P2P is the best thing for the artists in the world, but it is a helluva lot better than what the RIAA does to them. P2P may screw them out of sales, but RIAA screws them out of sales and places draconian contract obligations on top of them.
It's a US House of Rep report, based on IRS data. To sum it up, those that make more than $300k/yr pay 37% of all income tax collected. Those making less than $27k/yr (50% of US population) pay less than 4% of all income tax collected.
Looking at the numbers, and defining (for the sake of argument) "middle class" as the middle third, I'd say that the middle class pays less than 15% of all income taxes collected. (Numbers rounded in my post, exact numbers in link)
As a side note, IMO, the thing keeping people poor is themselves. I say this as a poor person (literally...we have 2 kids & qualify for WIC). I am poor now because I was stupid in the past. I will not be poor in the future because I have learned from my mistakes. Learn the time value of money, and what the terms "asset" and "liability" really mean (no, not the m-w definition, the P&L definition). If you learn that, and act on it, you won't be poor for long.
In the US, at least.
There are obviously other things that affect GAPDH activity, and it's periodicity. Their conclusion seems logical; there are transcription factors that are governed by the oxidation state of NAD(H) and NADP(H) referenced in the paper, and there are elements for these factors in the GAPDH promoter (again, according to the paper). By altering the period of the activity of NADPH-Ox, they have altered the balance of NADPH/NADP in a time-dependent manner. As a result, the activity of the transcription factors mentioned could affect the transcription of GAPDH.
In specific answer to your question, they don't conclude that it is the pacemaker, they conclude it is a part of an oscillating network (of coursem they don't say a small part....) what does "the rythm of the proteine" mean anyway?
A truncation on my part; meant to say "the rythm of the protein's activity"; i.e., the period of the activity switch. (There was once a program out there that would take a protein's primary sequence and translate it into MIDI. So maybe that's what I REALLY meant....)
I also agree that is deserves a bit higher position based on the conclusions. It's just that their experimentaion was a bit light. It's not even a 3.5 page paper, including references. They only really did two models (NADPH activity in 3 variants and GAPDH activity in two variants). IMHO, in order to get Science, they need to go a bit more in-depth.
Molecular Biology's version of the Beowulf cluster. Just had to say it.
They correlated this acitivty (NADPH-Ox) with a second acitivity (GAPDH) that is known to be regulated by some circaidian means. They did two mutations. Both affected the rythm of their protein. One mutation affected the GAPDH activity, but only one one period (They didn't mention the other one; probably had no effect; the assay is a smiple one). GAPDH activity follows two periods, a major and a minor one. This protein seems to affect the minor period. This does have an overall effect on the GAPDH activity in the cell, but probably by only affecting one period. There is something else controlling the second period
So, this is a clock, but not the clock. There seem to be at least two, probably more. The reason this didn't get Science or Nature is because it's still early work; they need a bit more data to get a tier one journal. Besides, Biochemistry ain't chopped liver. It's a nice journal to get into.
For the biochemists out there, I do mean GAPDH activity, not GAPDH levels. Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase activity is what is measured as the circadian effect endpoint. NADPH oxidase acitivity is the monitored activity of the enzyme of interest.