Hi all, The way you present it (analysing count data along environmental gradient, here elevation), I would suggest that you look into generalized linear model to begin with. You can have a good introduction to those models (and more) into Zuur 2009 (Mixed effect and extensions in Ecology with R) and also look at Kéry 2010 (Introduction to WinBUGS for ecologists; it is not only about Bayesian approach). Finally I agree with the first question : what is/are your hypotheses ? SMR

It looks like the lactate dehydrogenases from 2 or more species ( P falciparum and Lactobacillus helveticus) can utilize the phenyl substituted substrate. One reference for the Lactobacillus case is attached. For future reference, you can always consult the BRENDA enzyme catalog (http://brenda-enzymes.info/index.php4) for information about substrate specificities or inhibition. There is a lot of information available on many systems, along with links to the primary literature. Cheers-Kevin

Woow Balázs! I don't know what to say, thanks a lot! However I have tested the code and there is something that is not working. The test passes also for an uniform distribution, producing a good, low, U^2 stat. value, as low as testing a von mises distribution! Do I guess there is something that is not working well. As suggested by Timothy, I have also tested the kuiper test , and I have used the kuiper test available within the CircStat for Matlab. It seems to work consistently although the estimated p-value in the test is not enough really accurate. Here the details. I generated a von mises distribution with the mu and kappa estimated from my angles, say x, i.e.: [mu kappa] = circ_vmpar(x) and then vonmis = circ_randvm(mu,kappa,length(x)) Then I used the kuiper test to see whether the two distributions x and vonmis differ significantly (the difference can be in any property, such as mean, location and dispersion): [H,pValue] = circ_kuipertest(x, vonmis) It works, I tested different distributions. However, how I was saying the pvalue is not really accurate, too rough. They are taken from tabulated values up to 500 samples for each distribution (I'm in the order of thousands samples). If anyone would have any other tips would be great! Anyway, many thanks again! Ciao!!! sergio

Dear Eik, thank you so much for your enlightening answer! Right now, I'm conducting a systematic review with few trials (although all of them are randomized), so I need to conduct the best analysis possible. Many thanks Giovanni.

http://www.jpharmacol.com/temp/JPharmacolPharmacother32172-4186747_113747.pdf check it:)

Thanks Gowri. I have heard that too. Just some people whom do QPCR tell me not to used GAPDH or Beta Actin because the RNA expression levels vary in the cell lines.

Sajad, that is interesting. I didn't think of that (obviously)!

For in silico checking of methyl-specific primer specificity, this site is quite useful. For help in deciding inputs, just hover your pointer over each position and look at the explanation at the right under the "Help" heading. http://bisearch.enzim.hu/?m=genompsearch There is also a utility for MSP primer design, but I have not used it.

Hi, Sergio, Roche inhibitors are known to be the best among others. All my colleagues recommend these tablets too.

Please google "Software Defined Networking"...maybe it will answer a few of your questions! ;-)

Dr. Wingerden. Yes, I agree :)

Yes of course Lebogang, this last step is sort of voodoo anyhow. It is not the last step that decides on success. It's more all the steps before! I never did it in my life and never had problems with analytical PCR experiments nor with preparative PCR with fragments meant for cloning. Find out!

Hi Fabienne, As we can see from the answers above there are many ways to do this. I work mainly with NOD and BALB splenocytes and have found that different subpopulations of cells label differently with CFSE. Some label more strongly and some less. So therefore you'll have different peaks to begin with which could then "cloud" your readout. If at all possible I think you would benefit from enriching for T cells first. I agree with those that are recommending not including FCS or BSA in the labeling step but to use the addition of that to "quench" the labeling. Briefly, here's my protocol: 1-2 x 10^7 cells per ml in PBS. To 1 ml of cells, add 1 ml of 10 uM CFSE in PBS (made freshly by adding 50 ul of 200 uM CFSE (stock in DMSO) to 1 ml PBS) while vortexing on medium speed. Incubate on bench top for 5 minutes. Add 10ml of PBS+0.5% BSA and mix to "quench". Pellet the cells and wash one more time with PBS+BSA. For stimulation of the cells try CD3 alone as well as CD3+CD28. I see proliferation in response to CD3 alone using 1 X 10^6 cells per well in 96-well plate (flat-bottom) and 1 ug/ml of biotinylated anti-CD3 (145.2C11) followed by 1 ug/ml of streptavidin to crosslink. (Higher concentrations of CD3 antibody do not induce proliferation in my hands.) Also, try longer times than 72 hours as all cells are not necessarily behaving the same way. Sometimes the age of the donor mouse matters....... Another suggestion: Try CD3+CD40 stimulation. (1ug/ml of CD3 and 5 ug/ml of anti-CD40 (1C10)). CD40 is emerging as a costimulus for T cells that is as powerful as CD28 if not better sometimes. Good Luck!!

Hi William, I also like your definition. However, is your belief still bizarre if 90% of people in your culture believe in Aliens who regularly replace people's brains with tiny green chickens? Paul.

Thanks for the corn particle size details. To find out the reason for poor shell quality, I would focus on two factors; calcium sources & level and feed uniformity especially with large particle limestone and corn. Good luck.

The study that we carried showed the importance of sharing the interactive whiteboard with the students. The interactive whiteboard is not the exclusive property of the teacher! It must be shared with the students to boost exchanges. After that, the students are be more motivated. If you offer traditional teaching sequences, there is no gain to use educational tool. With the interactive whiteboard, you must think the lesson differently. http://www.lavenir.net/article/detail.aspx?articleid=DMF20120229_00124466

The latter sentence cited from Eriksen JR, Boel T, Schulze S, Kristiansen VB. / Hvad sker der hos personer med galdeblaeresten, hvis de ikke far foretaget kolecystektomi? Opfolgning af 222 konsekutive patienter med initialt ubehandlet galdestenssygdom // Ugeskr Laeger. 2007 Oct 22;169(43):3649-52

Thanks Kai I was thinking of doing that. Will start with 5mM BME and see what happens.

If you measure thermal diffusivity with a transient method and thermal conductivity with a static method, the calculated result of specific heat value is likely to fluctuate. I would suggest to determine specific heat of oven dry specimen with calorimetric method and then compose an equation comprising volume fractions of water and the hardened cement paste, and the respective specific heat of oven-dry hardened cement paste and water, giving the effective specific heat at a particular water content.

With all due respect to all, the reason if any that some believers do not adopt the reproductive health advise from their religious vendors is that it is too restrictive for normal human life today. Purely my opinion without any statistics to validate the hypothesis. These restrictions are no less stringent weather you are a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Christian or most other "universal way of life" . The question is, "what is the role of morality" in the lives of the believers? Each claiming their exclusive receipt of their religion from their "almighty".

sample size definitely affect the thermal parameters of the sample being sudied through DSC. excess quantity of sample will take long in completing the thermal event and thus would naturally be having higher than usual FWHM. if sample have pronounced thermal event then one can take small quanity of sample otherwise one need to take appreciable amount of sample in order to distinguish thermal event from noise. regarding using same sample size better way is to use fine grain powder of the sample.

I download it in ten minutes , do you have any ftp site?

I apologize -- I missed some of the messages discussing this issue further until just now. I'll try to address some of those points as soon as I can.

In my experience, the cheapest experiments in electrophysiology can be performed with extracellular field recording. only nees stereoscopic mycroscope, micromanipulatror (I.E. MM3, Narishige) and an AC amplifier (p511, Grass Inst). Recording chamber for brain slices are inexpensive. For student I suggest hypocampus CA3-CA1 synapses

Is this the right question to ask though? Isn't it like comparing apples with oranges? I often get asked a variant of this question and struggle with it. What might be better is to explore how ICT is impacting on learning.