cloned systems vs. native systems

What exactly are the two? I'm not familiar with the terms.

The purpose was to take everything in the literature and put it in one paper so people could get an idea of what our current knowledge was.

I think that's very important. Just knowing what questions to ask when trying to understand a phenomena is a really big step. go you!

I was two references away from having a hundred

98 is a much nicer number than 100. It has that lovely combination of 3² and 2³

And CBS' answer to NBC's successful midseason drama "Medium" is "Ghost Whisperer," a Jennifer Love Hewitt-starring vehicle based on the work of James Van Praagh about a newlywed communicating with dead people who have not quite crossed over to the other side.

WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THIS?!?

WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THIS?!?

JLH's parents?

You can plead not guilty even if everybody knows it was you. Even if you know you're guilty, you can plead not guilty.

Rice during her Iraq visit: "This war came to us, not the other way around."

Niiiice juxtaposition of posts. We can only hope that the rest of the first quote:

It is just that, in situations like that, you're gonna have to expect the jury to call you a liar and find you guilty, and possibly line up to kick you in the butt on your way to prison.

has some validity.

cloned systems vs. native systems

What exactly are the two? I'm not familiar with the terms.

Ah, heh, yeah. I thought I could get by with that. In a cloned system, you express the channel in a model system (like Xenopus oocytes or Chinese hamster ovary cells, although sometimes you do use cells that are supposed to have the channels) by sticking the DNA into them. The native system is the naturally occurring channel. When you just stick the channel DNA into a cell, that's all you get. The channel. In the native system, though, there are dozens of things that happen to the channel that maybe you didn't take into account when making your model system, you know? Auxiliary subunits that co-associate with it (often the lipids actually modulate them rather than the channel itself, so you might see a very different effect compared to when you just stuck the channel in a cell), post-translational modification (maybe in the actual cell, the channel gets a bunch of sugars attached to it), or hell, maybe just expression levels. It's the biggest fuck you in science: you examine something in a model system, and then it doesn't work out when you look at it in a human cell.

It's the biggest fuck you in science: you examine something in a model system, and then it doesn't work out when you look at it in a human cell.

I've always wondered how computer modelling can be involved reliably in research, because I thought the point of research was to see if unexpected things happen and unless the computers involved are very clever, you can't tell it to look for something you never thought of looking for.

I've always wondered how computer modelling can be involved reliably in research, because I thought the point of research was to see if unexpected things happen and unless the computers involved are very clever, you can't tell it to look for something you never thought of looking for.

I don't know what it says about me that this was the topic of my first internet community kerfuffle. lo these many years ago. I wonder what happened to that group.

I thought the point of research was to see if unexpected things happen and unless the computers involved are very clever, you can't tell it to look for something you never thought of looking for.

I'm figuring if you set up rules (that are right), you may encounter violations of them in model testing that seem counter-intuitive. And it is possible (in theory) to totally get how this mechanism works, but not be sure what happens when you switch the inputs.

I don't know what it says about me that this was the topic of my first internet community kerfuffle. lo these many years ago. I wonder what happened to that group.

The rest of the group were actually computer simulations.

Best developmental artifact EVAR!

Over the last four decades, scientists have come up with a variety of theories, arguing, for example, that orgasm encourages women to have sex and, therefore, reproduce or that it leads women to favor stronger and healthier men, maximizing their offspring's chances of survival.

But in a new book, Dr. Elisabeth A. Lloyd, a philosopher of science and professor of biology at Indiana University, takes on 20 leading theories and finds them wanting. The female orgasm, she argues in the book, "The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution," has no evolutionary function at all.

Rather, Dr. Lloyd says the most convincing theory is one put forward in 1979 by Dr. Donald Symons, an anthropologist.

That theory holds that female orgasms are simply artifacts - a byproduct of the parallel development of male and female embryos in the first eight or nine weeks of life.

In that early period, the nerve and tissue pathways are laid down for various reflexes, including the orgasm, Dr. Lloyd said. As development progresses, male hormones saturate the embryo, and sexuality is defined.

In boys, the penis develops, along with the potential to have orgasms and ejaculate, while "females get the nerve pathways for orgasm by initially having the same body plan."

Nipples in men are similarly vestigial, Dr. Lloyd pointed out.

While nipples in woman serve a purpose, male nipples appear to be simply left over from the initial stage of embryonic development.

The female orgasm, she said, "is for fun."