Yes, clearly 14 million dollars amounts to very little. If the DOE was interested in getting off oil and other nonrenewable resources, they would clearly put more money (billions) into solar energy.
Then again, it's going to take nonrenewable resources to fund the research on solar energy... the DOE being the greatest department, knows this of course. Brilliant!
For those of you who didn't make it this far into the 208 pages...
"Our propaganda is dirty but it is not black because it is true. Black propaganda is essentially false.... We just run propaganda campaigns."
Pretty goofy but it gets far goofier.
"Vicious and lying gossip by old women was the earlier form of this tactic and was so bad that some areas put them in public stocks (neck yokes) to drive them out of town.... The world is full of madmen."
Yeah that screen was ludicrous--so many genes/proteins identified... I like how the comments on the article said something to the effect of "this research will supply a good dozen PhD theses"
I'm in the Musier-Forsyth lab at Ohio State. I am looking over your group's site and see some interesting publications. It looks like really cool work. I'll be watching your lab for publications. Nice to meet you too.
Ah, you probably know much more about the TRIM proteins. I'm pretty new to the HIV field, and I'm just learning about the TRIM proteins. I work on the HIV Gag protein, and other members of our lab look at APOBEC3G. I might help with that project since APOBEC proteins are so hot right now.
There are natural immunities to HIV already. The receptors to which HIV binds (CD4 and corecptor CCR5 in most strains) are missing or mutated in some individuals, giving them natural immunity.
No. TRIM5alpha has been in the news for quite some time. It's a gene carried by old world monkeys that prevent them from getting HIV. The human version of TRIM5alpha has a mutation which does not protect us from HIV but does protect us from other types of viruses (it's thought). There are experiments that show that TRIM5alpha prematurely disassembles the capsid cores of HIV particles as they are infecting cells. These cores contain the viral RNA as it is being made into viral DNA for insertion into the host cell genome.
So you can imagine the interest in TRIM genes and proteins. Just Pubmed TRIM5alpha and you'll see many articles. TRIM22 is probably a homologue of TRIM5alpha. The article does not seem to mention anything about TRIM5alpha probably because it makes it seem like their work has already been done. See below for the original finding:
Immortal is the word used when talking about cells that can persist indefinitely. One of the first types of mutations that cancer cells have is the mutation to activate hTERT, the telomerase gene.
For normal cells to become cancer cells, they must become immortal. Immortalization generally involves alteration of normal cellular functions, such as the apoptosis machinery. So it's unlikely that the apoptosis pathway could be activated.
The RNA world hypothesis is an intriguing explanation for the origin of self-replicating RNAs that could have then spawned early life forms containing DNA.
Check The RNA World, edited by Cech, Atkins, and Gesteland, published by Cold Spring Harbor Lab Press. There are 3 editions to choose from. It gets into the nitty-gritty of the hypothesis. I think an intrepid slashdotter could handle it and might get a good deal of pleasure in this book.
Short answer: this is very practical. Labs commonly need to put in unnatural amino acids. It's not necessary right now to design new amino acids--the difficulty is getting them into proteins with high success rates.
Long answer:
Key paragraph from the article: "Although direct comparison with base pairs developed by other groups is difficult due to differing sequence contexts, the fidelity and efficiency of the d5SICS:dMMO2 pair appear to compare favorably with those for previously reported dDs:dPa,(8) dKappa:dX,(38) and disoC: disoG(3,39) unnatural base pairs."
So you could go to references, 3, 8, 38, and 39 to see more about other unnatural base pairs. There has been a lot of work in this field, and you don't get funding unless the work is practical. (Or I should say, you won't get more funding if your work is impractical.)
The practical side of it is to evolve new transfer RNAs that use these bases in their anticodon stems so that they can recognize other new codons. Normal tRNAs use 3 bases for recognition by binding to 3 other bases on the messenger RNA. This limits the number of recognitions for 4*4*4, or 64 possible codons. And these 64 are used for amino acids and stop codons (http://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem/MBWeb/mb2/part1/trna.htm). Now if you can increase this by adding a new base pair, the potential is 6*6*6, or 216 codons. So aside from using the normal 64 codons, you would have a bunch of abnormal codons for including all the unnatural amino acids you want.
Having new codons allows for the incorporation of new amino acids and hence new protein functions that were previously unable due to lack of chemistry. Or perhaps you want your protein to have some diagnostic feature that you could not give it before (e.g., strong fluorescence, paramagnetic tags, and others). For the most part, there are ways to incorporate unnatural amino acids into proteins by tricking the system to recognize a suppressor tRNA instead of recognizing a stop codon. This is the most common practice in use right now in the lab. The "new" amino acids can sometimes be incorporated with new aminoacyl tRNA synthetases that add the amino acid to a new tRNA. It's time consuming to evolve the new tRNA and the new synthetase by in vitro methods, but it has been done many times by now.
I think you are referring to the RNA world hypothesis, and this finding definately would explain how similar RNAs could segregate themselves from a community of many dissimilar RNAs. Part of this hypothesis tries to explain how a self-replicating RNA could form, but a difficulty in the proposal is how this RNA would be able to replicate other RNAs nearby, too. So it's interesting to wonder if the association allowed for more efficient selection. But the RNA world hypothesis is a hypothesis/speculation/educated guess.
If you are interested, there is a great book on the RNA world hypothesis called The RNA World, 2nd edition edited by Cech, Atkins, and Gesteland. It contains best guesses on what the early conditions would have been for selfr-replicating RNAs to evolve.
And let me add to that: in our laboratory, we use in vitro evolution to find nucleic acid aptamers that bind the best to larger proteins. One such RNA aptamer is on the market right now for treating macular degeneration. So not only can you observe evolution, it is advantageous for scientists to use experimental setups that mimic evolution to find the best (i.e., the fittest) molecule for a particular task. This has become quite common in modern drug design.
The PNAS editors comment upon their decisions in a 2-page editorial in the current issue of PNAS. They large agree with the parent posts as far as I can see.
It can be found here (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0711608105v1) but a subscription is required.
On another note... hopefully with the requirement that NIH-funded research must allow for publically accessible articles, even smaller non-funded editorials like this one will be open access.
Cheers to Portal. After playing this game, you feel, well, different. I cannot explain how after playing the game I would look across the twenty feet from my living room to my kitchen and think to myself that the quickest way there is by shooting a hole in the floor and another hole in the kitchen wall.
Yes, the article had room for improvement and potential, much like Vista. Heck, Vista has even more potential that XP does. You cannot beat that, and that is what this guy is trying not to say. All in all, this blogger does a fantastic job of predicting history.
Slashdot Mirror
and by 2015, all websites will be Moore-joke-linked and, thus, slashdotted
i think you got +3 for funny and +2 for shameless promotion... but will it work again...
slashdot, worth more than 1 minute every five hours.
You might have even more popcorn if they actually build the laser ...
previous discussion:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/13/0315230
and fembots
it would explain my college roommate ...
Yes, clearly 14 million dollars amounts to very little. If the DOE was interested in getting off oil and other nonrenewable resources, they would clearly put more money (billions) into solar energy.
... the DOE being the greatest department, knows this of course. Brilliant!
Then again, it's going to take nonrenewable resources to fund the research on solar energy
>The plume extends *thousands* of kilometers into space
...
Megameters! And other distances relatively unfathomable
For those of you who didn't make it this far into the 208 pages ...
... We just run propaganda campaigns."
... The world is full of madmen."
"Our propaganda is dirty but it is not black because it is true. Black propaganda is essentially false.
Pretty goofy but it gets far goofier.
"Vicious and lying gossip by old women was the earlier form of this tactic and was so bad that some areas put them in public stocks (neck yokes) to drive them out of town.
Hmm.
so if the universe is 13.73 +/- .12 billion years old, then how old is whatever is beyond? i'm hoping for eleventy billion years old ...
Yeah that screen was ludicrous--so many genes/proteins identified ... I like how the comments on the article said something to the effect of "this research will supply a good dozen PhD theses"
I'm in the Musier-Forsyth lab at Ohio State. I am looking over your group's site and see some interesting publications. It looks like really cool work. I'll be watching your lab for publications. Nice to meet you too.
Ah, you probably know much more about the TRIM proteins. I'm pretty new to the HIV field, and I'm just learning about the TRIM proteins. I work on the HIV Gag protein, and other members of our lab look at APOBEC3G. I might help with that project since APOBEC proteins are so hot right now.
There are natural immunities to HIV already. The receptors to which HIV binds (CD4 and corecptor CCR5 in most strains) are missing or mutated in some individuals, giving them natural immunity.
No. TRIM5alpha has been in the news for quite some time. It's a gene carried by old world monkeys that prevent them from getting HIV. The human version of TRIM5alpha has a mutation which does not protect us from HIV but does protect us from other types of viruses (it's thought). There are experiments that show that TRIM5alpha prematurely disassembles the capsid cores of HIV particles as they are infecting cells. These cores contain the viral RNA as it is being made into viral DNA for insertion into the host cell genome.
So you can imagine the interest in TRIM genes and proteins. Just Pubmed TRIM5alpha and you'll see many articles. TRIM22 is probably a homologue of TRIM5alpha. The article does not seem to mention anything about TRIM5alpha probably because it makes it seem like their work has already been done. See below for the original finding:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14985764?ordinalpos=110&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Immortal is the word used when talking about cells that can persist indefinitely. One of the first types of mutations that cancer cells have is the mutation to activate hTERT, the telomerase gene.
For normal cells to become cancer cells, they must become immortal. Immortalization generally involves alteration of normal cellular functions, such as the apoptosis machinery. So it's unlikely that the apoptosis pathway could be activated.
The RNA world hypothesis is an intriguing explanation for the origin of self-replicating RNAs that could have then spawned early life forms containing DNA. Check The RNA World, edited by Cech, Atkins, and Gesteland, published by Cold Spring Harbor Lab Press. There are 3 editions to choose from. It gets into the nitty-gritty of the hypothesis. I think an intrepid slashdotter could handle it and might get a good deal of pleasure in this book.
Think of all the stargates ...
Some science shatters human dignity ... the pope doesn't know the half of it. He was never a graduate student in the sciences.
Short answer: this is very practical. Labs commonly need to put in unnatural amino acids. It's not necessary right now to design new amino acids--the difficulty is getting them into proteins with high success rates.
Long answer:
Key paragraph from the article: "Although direct comparison with base pairs developed by other groups is difficult due to differing sequence contexts, the fidelity and efficiency of the d5SICS:dMMO2 pair appear to compare favorably with those for previously reported dDs:dPa,(8) dKappa:dX,(38) and disoC: disoG(3,39) unnatural base pairs."
So you could go to references, 3, 8, 38, and 39 to see more about other unnatural base pairs. There has been a lot of work in this field, and you don't get funding unless the work is practical. (Or I should say, you won't get more funding if your work is impractical.)
The practical side of it is to evolve new transfer RNAs that use these bases in their anticodon stems so that they can recognize other new codons. Normal tRNAs use 3 bases for recognition by binding to 3 other bases on the messenger RNA. This limits the number of recognitions for 4*4*4, or 64 possible codons. And these 64 are used for amino acids and stop codons (http://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem/MBWeb/mb2/part1/trna.htm). Now if you can increase this by adding a new base pair, the potential is 6*6*6, or 216 codons. So aside from using the normal 64 codons, you would have a bunch of abnormal codons for including all the unnatural amino acids you want.
Having new codons allows for the incorporation of new amino acids and hence new protein functions that were previously unable due to lack of chemistry. Or perhaps you want your protein to have some diagnostic feature that you could not give it before (e.g., strong fluorescence, paramagnetic tags, and others). For the most part, there are ways to incorporate unnatural amino acids into proteins by tricking the system to recognize a suppressor tRNA instead of recognizing a stop codon. This is the most common practice in use right now in the lab. The "new" amino acids can sometimes be incorporated with new aminoacyl tRNA synthetases that add the amino acid to a new tRNA. It's time consuming to evolve the new tRNA and the new synthetase by in vitro methods, but it has been done many times by now.
I think you are referring to the RNA world hypothesis, and this finding definately would explain how similar RNAs could segregate themselves from a community of many dissimilar RNAs. Part of this hypothesis tries to explain how a self-replicating RNA could form, but a difficulty in the proposal is how this RNA would be able to replicate other RNAs nearby, too. So it's interesting to wonder if the association allowed for more efficient selection. But the RNA world hypothesis is a hypothesis/speculation/educated guess.
If you are interested, there is a great book on the RNA world hypothesis called The RNA World, 2nd edition edited by Cech, Atkins, and Gesteland. It contains best guesses on what the early conditions would have been for selfr-replicating RNAs to evolve.
You mean make it beat too?
"As to evolution, of course you can observe it."
And let me add to that: in our laboratory, we use in vitro evolution to find nucleic acid aptamers that bind the best to larger proteins. One such RNA aptamer is on the market right now for treating macular degeneration. So not only can you observe evolution, it is advantageous for scientists to use experimental setups that mimic evolution to find the best (i.e., the fittest) molecule for a particular task. This has become quite common in modern drug design.
The PNAS editors comment upon their decisions in a 2-page editorial in the current issue of PNAS. They large agree with the parent posts as far as I can see.
... hopefully with the requirement that NIH-funded research must allow for publically accessible articles, even smaller non-funded editorials like this one will be open access.
It can be found here (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0711608105v1) but a subscription is required.
On another note
Cheers to Portal. After playing this game, you feel, well, different. I cannot explain how after playing the game I would look across the twenty feet from my living room to my kitchen and think to myself that the quickest way there is by shooting a hole in the floor and another hole in the kitchen wall.
Yes, the article had room for improvement and potential, much like Vista. Heck, Vista has even more potential that XP does. You cannot beat that, and that is what this guy is trying not to say. All in all, this blogger does a fantastic job of predicting history.