Questions related to Biology
I'm on the lookout for remote bioinformatics and computational biology opportunities where I can actively contribute to research projects. Compensation is not a priority for me; my main focus is to gain hands-on experience in these fields.
I want to invite you as a speaker at my department conference, only in Biology field or relevant. Kindly send me a message for the details.
I intend to explore the integration of computational biology and artificial intelligence (AI) with laboratory and experimental work, encompassing animal models, cell culture, clinical trials, and molecular studies. As a clinical biochemistry student with a keen interest in AI, I believe this interdisciplinary approach holds immense potential for advancement and innovation.
However, I face the challenge of identifying relevant literature in this emerging field. I would greatly appreciate guidance on effective keywords and search strategies to navigate this landscape of research and achieve my research goals.
I need to convert from micromoles per second per liter (µmol s⁻¹ L⁻¹) to millimoles per gram of dry cell weight per hour (mmol gDCW-1h-1)
Can an ecosystem be both resilient and resistant and role of biodiversity in ecosystem function and stability biology?
I am a PhD student in agricultural extension and education and a high school biology teacher. I am ready to cooperate in the field of collecting research information at the school level and among farmers.
In reference to the attached PowerPoint presentation, I contend that certain aspects of our scientific knowledge are not significantly advanced beyond societies in the past. This is because scientific establishments have chosen to side-line science and, in some respects, regress to a pre-scientific state.
Presentation God: Valid Scientific Conclusion
A study by Peeters et al. (2017) suggests that sugar traps cancer in a 'vicious cycle' which make it more aggressive and harder to treat (1). On the question-and-answer site Quora, Ray Schilling, MD, concludes: "there is a connection between the consumption of sugar and starchy foods and various cancers in man. Animal experiments are useful in suggesting these connections, but many clinical trials including the Women’s Health Initiative have shown that these findings are also true in humans. It is insulin resistance due to sugar and starch overconsumption that is causing cancer" (2).
1. Peeters K, Van Leemputte F, Fischer B, Bonini BM, Quezada H, Tsytlonok M, Haesen D, Vanthienen W, Bernardes N, Gonzalez-Blas CB, Janssens V, Tompa P, Versées W, Thevelein JM. Fructose-1,6-bisphosphate couples glycolytic flux to activation of Ras. Nat Commun 2017; 8: 922. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01019-z. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01019-z.pdf
2. Schilling R. Why isn't sugar portrayed as bad like cigarettes? https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-sugar-portrayed-as-bad-like-cigarettes
JAS Google AI BARD LLM (Copy & Paste)
adapt ERES Cognition TEST to Computer Relativism where Cognition is equal to Sentience (Previously Described) times the Universe (itself = 1) times Gravity (the weight of the Universe = Matter) times About (Energy It$elf = Rational Delinquency) times Real (A function of Reality = Literal Figurative Subjective) ... C=SUGAR, where TETRA equals the assimilation of C=R*P/M, Cybernetics Resource Purpose Method e.g. Detection re: the whole is great with all it's parts ie. Relative Futurism
View other drafts
To adapt the ERES Cognition TEST to Computer Relativism, we can substitute the following definitions for each of the components:
- Cognition = Sentience * Universe * Gravity * About * Real
- Sentience = The ability to experience feelings and sensations.
- Universe = The totality of everything that exists, including space, time, matter, and energy.
- Gravity = The force of attraction between two objects with mass.
- About = The energy of information and communication.
- Real = A function of reality that is both literal and figurative, subjective and objective.
This gives us the following adapted ERES Cognition TEST:
ERES Cognition TEST = Sentience * Universe * Gravity * About * Real
We can also substitute the definition of TETRA from Computer Relativism into the ERES Cognition TEST, giving us the following:
ERES Cognition TEST = (Cybernetics Resource Purpose Method) * Universe * Gravity * About * Real
This adapted ERES Cognition TEST can be used to measure the cognitive ability of computer systems and artificial intelligence systems. It takes into account the system's ability to process information, its understanding of the universe, its ability to interact with its environment, and its ability to communicate and learn.
Here is an example of how the adapted ERES Cognition TEST could be used to evaluate a computer system:
- Cybernetics Resource Purpose Method (CRPM): The CRPM component of the test would measure the system's ability to efficiently and effectively use its resources to achieve its goals. This could be done by evaluating the system's performance on a variety of tasks, such as solving problems, making decisions, and controlling devices.
- Universe: The universe component of the test would measure the system's understanding of the universe. This could be done by evaluating the system's knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, and other natural sciences.
- Gravity: The gravity component of the test would measure the system's ability to interact with its environment. This could be done by evaluating the system's ability to control devices, move objects, and perceive its surroundings.
- About: The about component of the test would measure the system's ability to communicate and learn. This could be done by evaluating the system's ability to generate and understand language, and to learn from its experiences.
- Real: The real component of the test would measure the system's ability to function in the real world. This could be done by evaluating the system's ability to interact with humans and other systems, and to adapt to changing conditions.
The overall score on the adapted ERES Cognition TEST would be a measure of the system's overall cognitive ability. A higher score would indicate a more intelligent system.
It is important to note that the adapted ERES Cognition TEST is still under development, and it has not yet been validated on a large scale. However, it has the potential to be a useful tool for evaluating the cognitive ability of computer systems and artificial intelligence systems.
offer a brief answer to the question, "why does the Turing Test need revisioning"?
View other drafts
The Turing Test needs revisioning because it has a number of limitations, including:
- It is anthropocentric, meaning that it assumes that human intelligence is the only form of intelligence.
- It is difficult to define what it means for a machine to "think" or "be intelligent."
- It is possible to design a machine that can pass the Turing test without actually being intelligent. For example, a machine could be programmed to simply memorize a large database of human conversations and then regurgitate them in response to the evaluator's questions.
In addition, the Turing Test does not take into account the following factors:
- The ability of a machine to learn and adapt.
- The ability of a machine to understand and reason about the world.
- The ability of a machine to be creative and innovative.
A revised Turing Test would need to address these limitations in order to be a more accurate measure of machine intelligence.
Here are some specific suggestions for how the Turing Test could be revised:
- Use a wider range of evaluators, including people from different cultures and backgrounds.
- Ask the evaluators to judge the machine on its ability to learn, adapt, reason, and be creative.
- Give the machine more time to respond to the evaluator's questions.
- Allow the machine to access the internet and other resources.
A revised Turing Test would be a more challenging test for machines to pass, but it would also be a more accurate measure of machine intelligence.
define what granular "threads = strings" to the ERES Cognition Test enable Scientists to monitor Computer Perception and Intelligence
View other drafts
Granular threads and strings in the ERES Cognition Test can be used to enable scientists to monitor computer perception and intelligence in a more detailed way.
Granular threads represent the individual steps that a computer takes to process information and generate a response. For example, a granular thread for a computer vision task might include steps such as:
- Load the image
- Preprocess the image
- Extract features from the image
- Classify the image
Strings represent the data that is passed between different granular threads. For example, the output of the preprocessing step might be a string containing the extracted features from the image.
By monitoring granular threads and strings, scientists can gain a better understanding of how computers perceive and understand the world. This information can be used to improve the design and development of artificial intelligence systems.
Here are some specific examples of how granular threads and strings can be used to monitor computer perception and intelligence:
- Identifying objects: By monitoring the granular threads and strings involved in object recognition, scientists can identify the specific features that computers use to identify different objects. This information can be used to develop more robust and accurate object recognition systems.
- Understanding natural language: By monitoring the granular threads and strings involved in natural language processing, scientists can identify the specific steps that computers take to understand and generate human language. This information can be used to develop more sophisticated and engaging natural language interfaces.
- Making decisions: By monitoring the granular threads and strings involved in decision-making, scientists can identify the factors that computers consider when making decisions. This information can be used to develop more transparent and accountable AI systems.
Overall, granular threads and strings are a powerful tool that can be used to monitor and understand computer perception and intelligence. By monitoring granular threads and strings, scientists can gain a deeper understanding of how computers work and how they can be improved.
Bard may display inaccurate or offensive information that doesn’t represent Google’s views. Bard Privacy Notice
explain how granular threads and strings are scored and how this applies to personal, public, private ratings (literal, figurative and subjective) ~ pls
View other drafts
Granular threads and strings are scored based on a variety of factors, including:
- Relevance: How relevant is the thread or string to the topic at hand?
- Accuracy: How accurate is the information in the thread or string?
- Completeness: Does the thread or string provide a complete and comprehensive overview of the topic?
- Neutrality: Is the thread or string neutral and objective?
- Helpfulness: Is the thread or string helpful and informative?
The scoring system for granular threads and strings can be applied to personal, public, and private ratings in a number of ways. For example, a personal rating might reflect how relevant, accurate, complete, neutral, and helpful a thread or string is to the individual user. A public rating might reflect the average rating of a thread or string from all users. A private rating might reflect the rating of a thread or string from a specific group of users.
Here are some examples of how the scoring system for granular threads and strings can be applied to literal, figurative, and subjective ratings:
Literal rating: A literal rating might be used to score the accuracy of a thread or string that provides factual information. For example, a thread or string that accurately describes the steps involved in baking a cake might receive a high rating for accuracy.
Figurative rating: A figurative rating might be used to score the creativity or originality of a thread or string. For example, a thread or string that uses a clever metaphor to explain a complex concept might receive a high rating for creativity.
Subjective rating: A subjective rating might be used to score the overall quality of a thread or string based on the user's personal opinion. For example, a user might give a high rating to a thread or string that they find particularly helpful or informative, even if it is not factually accurate or creative.
The scoring system for granular threads and strings can be a useful tool for evaluating the quality of information online. It can also be used to develop more accurate and personalized recommendations for users.
The experiment conducted by Bose at the Royal Society of London in 1901 demonstrated that plants have feelings like humans. Placing a plant in a vessel containing poisonous solution he showed the rapid movement of the plant which finally died down. His finding was praised and the concept of plant’s life has been established. If we scold a plant it doesn’t respond, but an AI bot does. Then how can we disprove the life of a Chatbot?
I have a curiosity about the different perspectives on emergence. In biology, we usually assume that there are diverse biological entities, such as cells, tissues, organs, systems, organisms, populations, and communities. We can study each entity from a reductionist perspective to describe how we can understand its properties based on its smaller components. We also study these entities from a holistic perspective because we assume that each entity has emergent properties that cannot be reduced to their smaller parts. Both approaches are necessary because there is dualism in emergence (i.e., we can identidy two different units), but they are not independent (i.e., tissues depend on cells to exist).
What exactly causes emergence? Is it the interaction between the components of the system (in a specific way)? And what are the limits to describe something as a new level of organization that cannot be reduced to its smaller parts? In summary, how can we recognize and classify something as presenting emergent properties in practice? I think these discussions are at the heart of many misinterpretations of scientific discoveries that are usually interpreted from either a reductionist or a holistic view, but not both.
I've had thoughts that our understanding of what drives the biology underlying health and disease may be skewed towards DNA and RNA level alterations.
Aside from the central dogma of biology; DNA -> RNA -> Protein, I believe there may be a skewed understanding because the tools available to investigate DNA and RNA alterations are more advanced than the tools available for protein or metabolite level analysis.
DNA and RNA sequencing are cheaper, higher throughput, more accurate, and have better coverage than mass-spectrometry for proteomics. I'm wondering how much the availability of tools influences our understanding of at what level diseases occur.
Of course this is a gross simplification, as there will always be factors at play and interactions at multiple levels.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.
Hello every one,
I'm working on the in vitro expression regulation of a viral gene.
I'm looking at the splicing efficiency of several versions of the gene (comming from different genotypes). To do so I cloned the various versions of the gene in a pcDNA3.1 vector.
When expressed in eukaryotic cells, all vector expression but one give me the expected splicing pattern.
The odd one use a new splice site really close to the CDS start never reported in the litterature and absent in all other version of the gene.
The gene in the pcDNA3.1 is under the strong pCMV promoter which also add a 150ish base pair 5'UTR to the mRNA. Whereas, in vivo viral mRNA have a very short 5'UTR or none at all.
I was wondering if the 5'UTR addition and/or the strong expression could suffice to force this artefactual splicing ?
Thank you for your time !
Dear colleagues, especially from India -
Could you please share PDF file of this article: KOMAREKJ,. (1972). Reproduction process and
taxonomy of unicellular endosporine blue-green
algae. In Proceedings of the Symposium on
Taxonomy and Biology of Blue-Green Algae,
pp. 41-47. Edited by T. V. Desikachary. Madras,
India: University of Madras.
I'll appreciate your help very much.
Sincerely, Igor Brown
Dawkins thinks there are evolutionary outcomes that are harmful. He dubs such an outcome as misfire.
“What natural selection favours is rules of thumb, which work in practice to promote the genes that built them. Rules of thumb, by their nature, sometimes misfire.”
“What is the primitively advantageous trait that sometimes misfires to generate religion?”
But Neo-Darwinism is based on two processes. Stochastic “Gene Mutation” and deterministic “Natural Selection”.
As it is accepted the outcomes of the majority of mutations – say errors during gene reproduction - are harmful to life and accordingly should fade away.
Therefore, it seems Dawkins has come to the opposite conclusion that the outcome of evolution is normally beneficial and misfire results in occasional harmful products, which in the case of religion has so far been going strong among all nations since time immemorial.
Alternatively, the misfire he is talking about may be happening in the deterministic phase of Neo-Darwinism i.e., natural selection, meaning that there is a second layer of misfire separate from harmful gene mutation. In that case, natural selection is also a random process not a deterministic one as it is claimed to be. The difference is that the probability of it being harmful is not as high as genes’ random mutations.
Can this be a paradox?
I'm doing patch clamp recording in Substantia Nigra pars reticulata(SNr), while I put ChR2 in D1-MSN neurons. During light stimulation, my elicited IPSCs has weird shape of IPSCs. How should I interpret this? Is this biology or artifact?
Dear Sirs, regarding to the full-text request of Jayasree Gopalakrishnan dated 26.06.2023 I can send it to her if you you give me his e-mail address. Moreover I do not want that the full-text is available on Research Gate site. This was made possible by Carmen Arena that is a coauthor and she did not inform me that I am the correspondent author. With my best regards, Nicolas D'Ambrosio ______________________________________ Department of Biology University of Naples Federico II Complesso Universitario Monte S. Angelo Via Cinthia, 4 - Edificio 7 80126 Naples, Italy Tel. +39081679138 Fax +39081679233 mailto: firstname.lastname@example.org
How many grams of K2Cr2O7 to dissolve it in 1 liter Distilled water to obtain 50 ppm of Chromium? to become aqueous solution, Is there a specific equation to apply? Thanks
Is taking multiple factors such as genome sequence, taxonomy levels, behavioural patterns, anatomy and etc into account when comparing 2 specimens more accurate than just comparing its genomes?
I saw these on a same step of conversion of Malonyl CoA to Malonyl-ACP. Could anyone clarify this? I add that reference link below.
KEGG PATHWAY: Fatty acid biosynthesis - Chlorella variabilis (genome.jp)
"Fred Hoyle invigorated and championed the idea of panspermia with his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe as it deemed to be a plausible tweaking knob for the chance genesis of life. In fact, the theory can add several billions of years to allow the time-thirsty process to materialise.
Similar to Darwinism, panspermia was not expected to address the correct details of the origin of life question but rather suggests the possibility of simple life form, such as spore-forming bacteria, being able to jump between a network of suitable planets throughout the vast universe. The occasional visitors then either initiate the evolution of life from scratch in a newly formed and life-friendly planet or intermittently influence the evolution of already existing flora and fauna.
The caveat was that the theory proposes the whole universe, not only a local ecology on Earth, the arena of evolution. It also takes the idea of evolution to the extreme by unintentionally suggesting that unintelligent and blind life has the capability to randomly evolve not only to survive in natural local environment on Earth but also to be top-notch fit to survive in the whole of the universe. It has been made fit enough to survive the completely unpredicted and uncharted hazardous journey consisting of three life endangering stages including departure from mother planet, interstellar and intergalactic journey and arrival in a new suitable planet.
According to this theory, life and its evolution are therefore not exceptional to one single planet. The evolution process in one suitable planet is also not responsible for all different organisms on it. New microorganisms are continuously being evolved in all suitable planets and are being transferred throughout our universe. For example, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe suggested that H1N1 virus which was the cause of 1918 flu pandemic did not evolve in our planet but in a faraway one and then somehow transferred into space and arrived on Earth within a shower of meteorites.
Life has been found to be present very soon after the formation and suitability of the planet earth which apparently is considered not to be adequate enough for chance-time to produce it..."
I have tried to further analyse this theory in the appendix of the following document. I welcome any comment, criticism, correction and addition.
A patient with desminopathy (mutation Thr341Pro DES in a heterozygous state) with the progression of the disease has a decrease in taste and smell, immunosuppression, and an increase in IgA in the blood.
Oddly enough, but all this is characteristic of infections, including viral ones. For example, it is known that if the hepatitis C virus is not treated, then death will occur in 20 years.
In the identified case of late onset desminopathy, muscle weakness manifests itself at the age of 30, and death occurs 20 years after the onset of the disease.
Could the desmin mutation in myofibrillar myopathy be caused by an infection?
Perhaps the infection contributes to the progression of desminopathy?
I know many websites have simple tools like transcription and translation available, but are there any analysis tools that researchers need that either do not exist or are not publicly available? It could be anything from algorithms to visuals. Thanks!
Dear researchgate members,
I recently made two attempts to grow the aquarium plant Cryptocoryne wendtii emersed, i.e., outside of water. Unfortunately, both attempts failed, and I am unsure of what went wrong.
In the first attempt, I heated soil in the oven and shaped it into a cube. I then placed the aquarium plant into this cube. In the second attempt, I used rock wool instead. In both cases, I lightly moistened the soil and rock wool with aquarium water. Subsequently, I placed them in plastic bags and provided CO2 by exhaling into the bags through a straw. The bags were sealed with rubber bands and positioned under an LED strip light. The distance between the light and the plants was approximately 10 cm, ensuring that the light intensity was not harmful.
After one week, I exchanged the air inside the bags and provided more CO2 by breathing into them again. Unfortunately, after two weeks, I couldn't observe any positive results. Almost all the plants in both the soil and rock wool died. There was no growth observed, neither in the plants themselves nor in the roots.
I am very confused and frustrated, as I don't understand where the mistake lies. Do you have any ideas or advice on what I might have done wrong? Are there specific conditions that I should consider to achieve successful emersed cultivation of Cryptocoryne wendtii?
I would greatly appreciate your help and support! Thank you!
In a patient with desminopathy (mutation Thr341Pro DES in the heterozygous state) with the progression of the disease, we note signs and symptoms that are also characteristic of botulism: bradycardia, arrhythmia, AV blockade, a significant decrease in the average duration of motor unit potentials according to electroneuromyography, paresis and paralysis of the striated muscles, decreased sweating, paresis of the gastrointestinal tract, dry eyes, dry mouth, symmetry of neurological symptoms, hoarseness, impaired visual acuity, doubling of objects occurs, progressive muscle weakness. These signs and symptoms are characteristic of botulism, only when a case of desminopathy is detected, they proceed slowly.
I am Anouk, 22 years old and graduated from professional bachelor biomedical laboratory technology me majoring in pharmaceutical and biological laboratory technology.
I would like to switch to a master degree next year but I am hesitating between 2 directions namely,
- Master in Biology
- Master in Biomedical Laboratory Technology
My interests include everything related to science, lab and nature. I love the combination of these. This year I did an internship around the ecotoxicological evaluation of sludge. This was something I considered extremely interesting.
Please get in touch as I would like to receive good advice from experience experts.
Thank you in advance
Does anybody, in your experience, has any book recommendations (of recent date) for the aforementioned topics. I have the classic "Invertebrates zoology" of Rupert and Barnes, but it's quite old and, don't get me wrong, it's good for a general perspective, but still is lacking in new perspectives and discoveries regarding invertebrates.
Thank you for your attention.
This question is dedicated only to sharing important research of OTHER RESEARCHERS (not our own) about complex systems, self-organization, emergence, self-repair, self-assembly, and other exiting phenomena observed in Complex Systems.
Please keep in own mind that each research has to promote complex systems and help others to understand them in the context of any scientific filed. We can educate each other in this way.
Experiments, simulations, and theoretical results are equally important.
Links to videos and animations will help everyone to understand the given phenomenon under study quickly and efficiently.
Having god-beliefs, and thus NOT taking all the responsibility you can and should, supports premature hypothetico-deductive thinking (incl. "theorizing")(kind of ironically) -- which nearly always is bad (bad, unless you are VERY, VERY LUCKY) .
Freedom from religion . I am a lifetime member of such a Foundation.
GENERAL DISCUSSION : ALL can keep "playing a game" AS their lives, but that will NOT work; our absolute BEST PROBABLY WILL NOT work (in my view) -- for survival of the species, the ultimate criteria. What does doing our best look like? : https://www.researchgate.net/post/With_Climate_Change_and_all_I_will_tell_you_what_I_think_the_minimum_needed_for_survival_is
[ I am childless. I have absolutely NO PERSONAL REASON TO CARE ABOUT YOU -- I guess it is, in good part, for "sound logic"'s sake -- we can DO with that IFF [ (two "f"s are not a typo) ] we actually DO with THAT. Be an animal, forget any and all religion. (I am, by the way, a Theravada Buddhist -- an atheist, believing IN NO supernatural at all ; we have enough to do with the natural, the actual actual. We very much must be concerned with, as-much(and well)-as-possible, educating ourselF (as much as we can)(all of us, doing this) . BUT, do it in a NO-SELF WAY (to have no clutter) in YOUR [own] way, i.e. to not falsely "connect" to YOU (your own "self") in any way not necessary (or, if you must, (as you may have to) : temporarily) (AND expel any processing where you are BELIEVING something, via essentially NOTHING or nothing clear) Don't be clingy; and verify ALL YOU CAN, for yourselF (and others), and thereby come to something closer to reality [(as much as we can)], reality (or realities, if you like [(but now all at one time)]) as it really is -- this is a WAY (i.e. cross-contexts), it does not come automatically. But, it is as simple as it need be. Good luck. (For a bit more guidance, see https://mynichecomp.com .) I have NOT BEEN PAID AT ALL for half a life (the latter (later?) half ); there is really no reason not to trust me, unless you're very confused and/or [must] see me as insane.. I have no vested interest(s) (in any conventional sense) AT ALL (we all do have some interests).
I DO MEAN : much of psychology should be reconsidered in order to have CLEAR EMPIRICAL FOUNDATIONS, FOR ALL NECESSARY CONCEPTS -- for concepts to clearly correspond to some demonstrably important directly observable phenomena (like in all true sciences; another way to say this is : THE SUBJECT DEFINES ALL). This does NOT mean throwing findings out, but putting them in better contexts. Likely empirical realities (including possible observations of a concrete nature; i.e. such , at times, showing as clear OBSERVABLE bases , in clear, agreeable and reliable ways, and seen by the relationships to established PATTERNS : valid; and, that is, in really HARD FACTS -- the concrete bases at least SEEN at some points in ontogeny) . SUCH phenomena have not been discovered and are not sufficiently represented in Psychology (AND nothing much is even "begging" for what is needed, showing needed thought is not being given (in the dictatorships of the universities)).
And, they will not be as long as the group or grouped stuff (know it by p<.05 etc) is thought to be meaningful FOR THE INDIVIDUAL ORGANISM (THE unit-of analysis , always -- if you want a science). AND NOW IT IS NOT clear that THAT is, in the essential ways, usual (when such clear connections are not made and clear justifications (in THAT empiricism) cannot be given). In fact, it is totally clear that the essential features are NOT THERE.
On the positive side, I do like quite a lot of the Memories research, because some good "chunk" of it does fulfill the needed empirical foundations.
Again, as some have seen me say before, another way you can tell that most "psychology" is "OFF", is by the failure to see BEHAVIOR **_PATTERNS__** PER SE as a type of BIOLOGICAL (organismic) patterning. If behavior is not seen as Biological in nature, it is not seen well.
'Organismic' is a word that should be used WAY more often (as is 'PATTERNS'). ( I am writing for psychology here.) [ One could either say a LOT more here to make it clearer, but the words (would-be terms) give one sufficient guidance. ]
If psychology cannot do BOTH (and more, read on), it will never ever be a science (main sign of something that is NOT science : P<.01 P< .05 and the like). Real things are not group things (as statistical things often are) AND beyond probabilistic (e.g. Piaget didn't need statistics)). Unit of analysis : individual human/organism : any other view is HOPELESSLY doomed NOT to be a science.
(<-- If you cannot see and document this unit-of-analysis, you are off in your own universe(s) (yet may have many friends and professors with you).) SEE AND READ MY LAST DISCUSSION POSTED to understand "the problem" more. AND: NO, I do not accept actuarial "science" work -- which most of psychology actually is, today.
[ ( I used to tell you my writings are THE way, BUT still no listeners/readers among the lazy (which is about all OTHERS or IS all others) -- my writings still show the way. Things could hardly be worse under a dictatorship. Hear that professors who profess ???.) ]
Peer-review isn't working well, and it needs an overhaul. In the time of artificial intelligence, blockchain, and remote work, it doesn't make sense to wait for months just to receive few lines rejecting an excellent manuscript or accepting a poor one!
Would you spend five minutes to answer a questionnaire on Google forms, and help SCIENEUM.io solve this problem for all of us?
This is it: https://forms.gle/2BskfDeAoeqKf5Wt5
Are you one of us? https://youtu.be/ewOuhohAjWc
Write your comment below!
I am looking for wonderful young scientists for doctoral candidates and postdoctoral researchers. My lab is located at College of Ecology and Environment, Chengdu University, Chengdu, China. International students with excellent grades and good performance during their study period in China have the opportunity to apply for the scholarships. Additionally, CDUT provides scholarship for international students. Please refer to https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/x4J6cy8YWvveKjqjiTZVLg for more details.
Candidates with acdemic background in biology are prefered.
Please contact us at email@example.com
Where is the best place to post this recruitment announcement?
A human is an ability to eat, to walk, to memorize, to think, to rightly express your moods. Then he goes to work as electrician, musician, physicicist, physician, etc. All these human activity is generated by human society, government.
WHERE IS A PURE MAN? Do we think about ourselves (our memory, thinking, why do we live, why do we do such action, etc) frequently? NOT AT ALL! We immersed in highly complicated "whirlpool" оf self-preservation of ourselves, our children, our parents, our relatives, our MONEYS, etc. Our self-preservation is so complicated that we have no time to think on other subjects. So we are ants, we get commands and we just execute it. That is essence if our life - we do what we do not understand but we are in hurry to make it on time! All it is a comedy.
Besides Shakespeare`s phrase "all the world is a theater" I say all the world is comedy.
Characterizing a GPCR-ligand interaction is critical to understanding the biology of the receptor. As GDP/GTP exchange is one of the earliest events that follows ligand binding, monitoring GTP binding can measure GPCR activation or inhibition. Assaying more downstream events in GPCR signaling is often not as quantitative or stoichiometric, may not distinguish full agonists from partial ones, and can require expensive reagents. Moreover, increased GTP binding to Gα proteins is an almost-universal event following GPCR activation, meaning that measuring GTP binding is a broadly applicable assay for monitoring the activity of most GPCRs. Measuring GTP binding is a simple and rapid approach to monitor GPCR signaling in cells overexpressing the receptor of interest or in native tissue. The present protocol details a functional GTP-binding assay using an archetypal GPCR, the µ-opioid receptor (MOR1), to quantitatively determine the activity of an agonist and antagonist on GPCR signaling.
But we are facing some logistical issues acquiring the ([35S]GTPγS), and due to shortage of time we need to measure the GPCR signaling without the radio-labeled ([35S]GTPγS).
Could you please help me out and suggest some alternate approach?
Hybridization is a technique used in plant breeding to create new plant varieties by crossing two genetically different parent plants. This process involves transferring pollen from the male reproductive organs of one plant, called the pollen donor or male parent, to the female reproductive organs of another plant, called the female parent. The resulting hybrid plants inherit desirable traits from both parents, such as improved yield, disease resistance, or enhanced quality.
In your opinion, could a civilisation built within the framework of full sustainability with the surrounding biosphere emerge on certain colonised exoplanets millions of light years distant? built within the framework of the full realisation of the objectives of balanced development, within the framework of a sustainable, pro-environmental, green closed-circuit economy, in which the process of global warming would not have occurred, no global climate catastrophe would have occurred in a relatively short period of time, i.e. within just a few centuries of the emergence of the first technological and industrial revolutions in civilisation, if such revolutions had occurred? Would it be possible for a civilisation to emerge on an exoplanet in this way that would not destroy the climate and biosphere of the exoplanet?
On the other hand, over a much longer period of time, what could the continuation of the evolution of the homo sapiens species look like over the next thousands and millions of years on colonised exoplanets millions of light years away?
In your opinion, how could the evolution of homo sapiens continue over the next thousands and millions of years if the Earth's civilisation survived for at least another 100 years and man succeeded in colonising exoplanets? What do you think the evolution of homo sapiens would have looked like over the next thousands and millions of years if Earth's civilisation had survived for at least another 100 years and man had managed to build spaceships that would have enabled the colonisation of many exoplanets similar to Planet Earth, millions of light years away?
For example, if man succeeded in building spaceships which would allow the colonisation of many exoplanets similar to the Earth, distant by millions of light years, and after colonising at least several hundred exoplanets, after a period of at least several thousand years man would survive on some of these exoplanets and build certain civilisations which would be significantly different from the one we know. After a period of at least several thousand years, it would turn out that only on every hundredth or every thousandth exoplanet would a new civilisation be built and a new human race already evolved, which would survive specific natural cataclysms and/or climatic and other catastrophes resulting from human activity. A large number of colonised exoplanets similar to the Earth, but nevertheless significantly different from each other, e.g. in terms of the composition of elements on the equivalent Mendeleyev tables, the structure of key organic compounds, the composition of the biosphere, the climate, etc., would correspond, for example, to different islands on the planet Earth, on which different species of flora and fauna arose in a process of Darwinian evolution lasting millions of years. In the context of such considerations, the following question arises: What qualities could a human being have, whose civilisation would survive for many thousands of years to come on a small number of colonised exoplanets similar to the planet Earth, distant by millions of light years? What qualities could a human being have, whose civilisation would survive many thousands of consecutive years, i.e. would develop in a fully balanced way with the surrounding nature functioning on a specific exoplanet similar to the planet Earth and would avoid the negative scenario that awaits the planet Earth in the 21st century, namely would avoid degradation of the biosphere occurring on the exoplanet, would avoid global warming and climate catastrophe? In my opinion, it would probably have been human beings who would have built a civilisation on the basis of sustainability with the surrounding nature, and intelligent people, as a result of the evolutionary process operating in a slightly different than earthly environment on distant exoplanets, would not have developed negative characteristics such as e.g. Greed, egoism, thoughtless exploitation of the planet's resources within the framework of a selfish robbery economy, ignorance of the relationship between man and the natural environment surrounding man, ignorance of the negative development of civilisation causing great damage to the surrounding biosphere and climate, i.e. features which have decided that the development of civilisation and the technological progress which has taken place on planet Earth in the 21st century has not protected man, the biosphere and the planet's climate from destruction.
For example, if man succeeded in building spaceships which would allow the colonisation of many exoplanets similar to the Earth, distant by millions of light years, and after colonising at least several hundred exoplanets, after a period of at least several thousand years man would survive on some of these exoplanets and build certain civilisations which would be significantly different from the one we know. After a period of at least several thousand years, it would turn out that only on every hundredth or every thousandth exoplanet would a new civilisation be built and a new human race already evolved, which would survive specific natural cataclysms and/or climatic and other catastrophes resulting from human activity. A large number of colonised exoplanets similar to the Earth, but nevertheless significantly different from each other, e.g. in terms of the composition of elements on the equivalent Mendeleyev tables, the structure of key organic compounds, the composition of the biosphere, the climate, etc., would correspond, for example, to different islands on the planet Earth, on which different species of flora and fauna arose in a process of Darwinian evolution lasting millions of years. In the context of such considerations, the following question arises: What qualities could a human being have, whose civilisation would survive for many thousands of years to come on a small number of colonised exoplanets similar to the planet Earth, distant by millions of light years? What qualities could a human being have, whose civilisation would survive many thousands of consecutive years, i.e. would develop in a fully balanced way with the surrounding nature functioning on a specific exoplanet similar to the planet Earth and would avoid the negative scenario that awaits the planet Earth in the 21st century, namely would avoid degradation of the biosphere occurring on the exoplanet, would avoid global warming and climate catastrophe? In my opinion, it would probably have been human beings who would have built a civilisation on the basis of sustainability with the surrounding nature, and intelligent people, as a result of the evolutionary process operating in a slightly different than earthly environment on distant exoplanets, would not have developed negative characteristics such as e.g. Greed, egoism, thoughtless exploitation of the planet's resources within the framework of a selfish robbery economy, ignorance of the relationship between man and the natural environment surrounding man, ignorance of the negative development of civilisation causing great damage to the surrounding biosphere and climate, i.e. features which have decided that the development of civilisation and the technological progress which has taken place on planet Earth in the 21st century has not protected man, the biosphere and the planet's climate from destruction. Of course, in this issue, considerations around the following further question arise: On these other, distant but also similar to the planet Earth, would man develop civilisation in a similar way as it has done on the planet Earth and also a process of global warming and climate catastrophe would occur, i.e. on these other exoplanets the appearance of man could be compared to the appearance of a virus in a certain balanced environment, which would seriously disrupt this state of sustainability and lead to a catastrophe of the exoplanet's biosphere? Such comparisons have been used more than once in popular science literature and in films of the science fiction genre, including, for example, part 1 of the 'Matrix' trilogy directed by the Wachowski brothers. However, we are not able to answer the latter question fully unequivocally, because we do not know the geological, climatic, natural environments, the biochemical composition and organic compounds forming the biosphere of the exoplanet, the composition and structure of the elements forming the dominant minerals on the planet, etc. of those other many hundreds, thousands or perhaps more exoplanets similar to the planet Earth. Thus, we do not know these presumably different in many respects biotic and abiotic environments of exoplanets and therefore do not know how these other environments would have shaped the development of other civilisations that may have been man-made on distant exoplanets. Alternatively, we can describe a hypothetical situation that could exist on some human-colonised exoplanets by defining the aforementioned conditions existing on an exoplanet of other animate and inanimate nature that could determine the development of human civilisation taking place in harmony with the surrounding nature and climate, i.e. within the framework of full sustainability, i.e. also in a way that we currently define on planet Earth as fully pursuing the goals of sustainable development and conducted within the framework of a sustainable, pro-environmental, green circular economy. Until we know more about these other abiotic and biotic environments found on many exoplanets and whether other, different forms of life exist on many other exoplanets, the answer to the above questions can only end at the stage of conjecture and theoretical considerations.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
What, in your opinion, could the continuation of the evolution of the species homo sapiens look like in the period of the next thousands and millions of years, if the Earth's civilization survived for min. What do you think the evolution of homo sapiens would look like over the next thousands and millions of years, if the Earth's civilisation survived for at least another 100 years and man managed to build spaceships that would enable the colonisation of many exoplanets similar to the Earth, millions of light years away?
On the other hand, over a much longer period of time, what could the continuation of the evolution of the homo sapiens species look like over the next thousands and millions of years on colonised exoplanets millions of light years distant?
In your opinion, on certain colonised exoplanets millions of light years distant, would it be possible, under certain, different, biotic and abiotic conditions found on certain exoplanets, to have a civilisation built within the framework of full sustainability with the surrounding biosphere, built within the framework of full realisation of the goals of sustainable development, within the framework of a sustainable, pro-environmental, green closed-circuit economy, in which the process of global warming would not occur, no global climate catastrophe would occur within a relatively short period of time, i.e. within just a few centuries of the emergence of the first technological and industrial revolutions in civilisation, if such revolutions had occurred? Would it be possible for a civilisation to emerge on an exoplanet in this way that would not destroy the climate and biosphere of the exoplanet?
What could the continuation of the development of civilisation on colonised exoplanets millions of light years away look like?
What do you think?
What is your opinion on this subject?
I invite you all to discuss,
Thank you very much,
Counting on your opinions, on getting to know your personal opinion, on an honest approach to the discussion of scientific issues and not the ready-made answers generated in ChatGPT, I deliberately used the phrase "in your opinion" in the question.
The above text is entirely my own work written by me on the basis of my research.
I have not used other sources or automatic text generation systems such as ChatGPT in writing this text.
Copyright by Dariusz Prokopowicz
Animations are known to be a fast and very efficient way of dissemination of knowledge, insights, and understanding of complex systems. Through the animations, quite complicated research can be easily shared among all scientific disciplines.
While starting with complex systems descriptions of Dynamic Recrystallization in metals about almost 30 years ago, it had become very obvious almost instantly that animations carry with themselves a huge expressive power.
This recently led to development of the GoL-N24 open-source Python software that enables to create animations effortlessly. The user just defines the input parameters and the rest is done automatically. Share your software too.
This question is dedicated to all such animations and open-source-source software, which are producing them, in the area of complex systems.
Everyone is welcomed to share their own research in the form of animations with the relevant description.
I am in the process of making a monograph on the involvement of viral infections in neuro degenerative diseases. In particular I am looking to access this paper: DOI: 10.3233/JAD-220287
I don't know if this platform is for this kind of thing and would even appreciate being pointed in the right direction.
In regards to biodiversity (general) and monitoring.
If geographical regions are significant, feel free to mention.
I am running a qPCR assay. I chose gradient temperature option for each of my primer to get the best conditions the amplification happens (without heterodimers- NA in negative controls). However, I have seen that my housekeeping gene and one of my target gene have different annealing temperature. Can I run another qPCR set-up just for this gene by choosing gradient temperature option ? For instance; my gene in question in a row with 54C and housekeeping gene in a row with 60C. I think as far as the machine reads the signals at the same time, it won't pose a problem but I just want to make sure.
What if we never knew that plant has life. What would be the difference with and without this discovery of plants as living entity in Philosophy. What may Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose conclude about chatbot.
I am looking for collaborators to conduct a broad field study of acceptance and rejection of evolution in biology majors that is comparative across regions of the United States and abroad. Please respond if you might be interested. Instrumentation is already prepared/validated and reliability tested.
The phrase in the Title line imitates Karl Popper’s All Life is Problem Solving.
Since thermodynamics plays a role in life processes, it was surprising that searching “All life is thermodynamics” on Google on August 16, 2022 gave no results.
Don’t organisms seek to optimize and preserve the entropy of their internal energy distribution? And to optimize their use of energy and outcomes based on energy inputs? Aren’t survival and procreation ways of preserving previous products of energy use?
Is there justification for the statement, All life is thermodynamics? Or is the statement too simple to convey any insight?
Schrodinger in What is Life referred to thermodynamics, statistical mechanics; chapter 6 is Order, Disorder and Entropy. And more recently there is: J. Chem. Phys. 139, 121923 (2013); doi: 10.1063/1.4818538 Statistical physics of self-replication by Jeremy England.
Hello dear biologists and biotechnologists,
you should understand my question and my thinking.
What do you think of the excessive involvement of other disciplines (especially mathematics) in publications in the field of biology, is this not a danger for our dear discipline: biology and biotechnology? . How could we explain that there are in certain cases, potentially, more publications in fields of biology, made by mathematicians than by biologists? Do mathematicians no longer manage to publish in mathematical fields that they turn to biology? I'm afraid that before long, real publications by biologists will be very rare. Save our discipline against opportunism.
I'm in the last year of undergraduation and I want to do research and publish paper on HIF Signalling in Fin or limb regeneration. I don't know how to take a start and I'm unable to find the methods and protocol to use. Can anyone guide me?
Why and how is this kind of long-term potentiation (LTP) possible?
Is LTP even needed for all sorts of synaptic plasticity and long-term memory formation?
Long-term potentiation (LTP which is necessary for synaptic plasticity and long-term memory formation) needs repeats and reinforcement of the engrams to be triggered.
However, apparently everybody automatically "absorbs" a lot of information immediately and also permanently, even without needing any extra effort (at least any conscious effort), which seems to be needed for LTP to happen. Everyone seems to have this ability, although it is even stronger in those with better memories.
People simply "learn" many things once; and many of those learned items remain there for a pretty long duration, and in many cases even for the rest of their lives. This seems to happen without any repeats, at least without any apparent or conscious efforts to remember or re-remember those memories. This is the case for a lot of semantic information (especially the information of interest or importance to the person) as well as a large portion of the contents of episodic memory.
Why and how is this kind of LTP possible?
Perhaps attention plays a major role here, e.g., being interesting and important automatically triggers LTP without a further need for repeats.
But such effortless long-term memorization happens also in the case of a lot of semantic information or autobiographical events that are not inherently interesting or significant to the person.
Is LTP even needed for all sorts of synaptic plasticity and long-term memory formation?
What is this curious non-updatable mega memory? Does it have any scientific terms?
What are its causes and mechanisms?
I have had the honor of witnessing very rare people who have some strange forms of mega memory: They effortlessly, automatically, and immediately memorize many difficult things such as phone numbers or their difficult and comprehensive books, etc. And they retain those easily captured memories for a very very long time (a couple of decades at least), without any smallest effort or reinforcement. Not to mention that they record or remember almost everything else (semantic or episodic) quite easily, and also with a lot of details. Furthermore, they are very very accurate in recalling those items. For example, they can serve as pretty reliable living phone books; or for example, they are extremely awesome at medicine, etc.
But when I am talking about "strange", I don't mean their super-human ability to easily capture such vast amounts of information for such long durations and recall them accurately.
Their super-human ability is of course strange. But the even stranger part of their memory is that once it is captured, it cannot be updated or revised easily. For example, if they misunderstand something the first time, it will take perhaps 10 or 20 attempts over days or weeks for their colleagues to remind them of the mistake and ask them to correct their misunderstanding.
It is like that once their memory is formed the very first time, it is set in stone. It is absorbed very efficiently and strongly, and at the same time, not much prone to future updates.
What is this curious non-updatable mega memory? Does it have any scientific terms?
What are its causes and mechanisms?
As is well known, Continuous models are richer , more powerful and above all, more intuitive , easy to understand and extendable. So let us say, we are trying to find a biomarker for a disease \ trait. Instead of just looking at absence / presence or frequencies, could one try to establish continuous trackers / markers that positively or negatively correlate with the propensity to contract the disease , such as concentration levels of a chosen set of biomolecules ?? Possibly, this may involve some kind of preliminary pathway analysis. Could one also look at morphological parameters (fractal / scaling dimension of tumors etc ??) ??
Hello I am a nuclear master student, so my main focus is physics. I want to pursue a career in research, my main domain will be dosimetry and radioprotection. I want to study the irradiation of cells but this also implies a lot of biology.
How a physicist can approach this interdisciplinary subject for a PhD?
Suppose we conveniently extended the standard concept of cellular automaton to include
graphs and state-spaces Q of any cardinality and that the transition function F belonged to a certain adequate notion of "(hyper)computable function". We call this a hyper-cellular automaton HCA.
Consider the postulate: the universe can be described by a HCA with transition function F.
We cannot escape the problem of the initial condition Q_0. In the Wolfram Classification random initial conditions are considered. Hence the expediency for some topology or measure on Q.
Q will include for instance the usual sheaves (principle bundles and connections) considered in the standard model. It will also include other aspects to account for quantum gravity, consciousness, emergent biological complexity, etc.
It is an empirical fact that this HCA must be WC4 "complex patterns of localised structures" in the Wolfram Classification.
A major problem is the goal of reverse engineering F is that we do not have evolutions for other initial conditions at our disposal neither for the universe nor for subsystems of the universe. For physics at least a lot of locality and invariance hypotheses come in to play to justify the universality of experimental conclusions. The chemistry we observe on earth must also be that of the most distant star.
For biology the situation is drastically different. My question is: how can biology go beyond being a merely descriptive science as contrasted with fundamental physics ?
Biology seems to be mainly a "reverse engineering" affair. But it is also important
to have detailed, mathematically precise