Basically, the first guy said that this protein only had one binding site because he "proved" that the detergent used to solve the structure didn't change its structure any by solving the structure again in a different detergent.
The second guy showed undeniably that the different detergent, in addition to a variety of other conditions, inhibited protein function, basically meaning that the first guy just wasted a year of his life.
And both of these papers were published in the same journal at the same time. And this is Nature, which is like the best of the best. So, my point was more that papers can be flat out wrong and you always need to have some healthy skepticism when reading. After skimming through the DRACO paper, the main thing that caught my eye was that they were injecting DRACO three days after a mouse was infected. To me, this doesn't seem nearly long enough to be useful. I mean, most humans won't know whether or not they have an illness before they start showing symptoms and a good number diseases have an incubation time of longer than three days.
I'm also skeptical of the idea of inducing apoptosis, because that's kinda the thing that the body tries to prevent. I mean, wouldn't you expect the body to fight back against this drug and start making antibodies for it really quick if it was going around killing cells (even infected ones)? I mean, most viruses kill your cells to begin with, so you'd have to hope that you kill the cell before that virus is at any stage where it can replicate. And in the case of HIV, this seems like a bad way to just give yourself AIDS since all the cells you'll be destroying will your own immune system. That and HIV is lysogenic, so could just hide out in your DNA until the drug course is over.
Basically, the first guy said that this protein only had one binding site because he "proved" that the detergent used to solve the structure didn't change its structure any by solving the structure again in a different detergent.
The second guy showed undeniably that the different detergent, in addition to a variety of other conditions, inhibited protein function, basically meaning that the first guy just wasted a year of his life.
And both of these papers were published in the same journal at the same time. And this is Nature, which is like the best of the best. So, my point was more that papers can be flat out wrong and you always need to have some healthy skepticism when reading. After skimming through the DRACO paper, the main thing that caught my eye was that they were injecting DRACO three days after a mouse was infected. To me, this doesn't seem nearly long enough to be useful. I mean, most humans won't know whether or not they have an illness before they start showing symptoms and a good number diseases have an incubation time of longer than three days.
I'm also skeptical of the idea of inducing apoptosis, because that's kinda the thing that the body tries to prevent. I mean, wouldn't you expect the body to fight back against this drug and start making antibodies for it really quick if it was going around killing cells (even infected ones)? I mean, most viruses kill your cells to begin with, so you'd have to hope that you kill the cell before that virus is at any stage where it can replicate. And in the case of HIV, this seems like a bad way to just give yourself AIDS since all the cells you'll be destroying will your own immune system. That and HIV is lysogenic, so could just hide out in your DNA until the drug course is over.
I dunno. There's some sizable holes in there.
I'm aware of the nature of publication in journals.
So, theoretical computer science shows that Obama is wrong about not being able to have 100% privacy and 100% security, and zero inconvenience. Because apparently with homomorphic encryption, you can have all of these things.
I imagine that some dino's would have had some spectacular colours, and whatnots to impress the ladies or the males depending on the more impressable gender.
Comments
Example, with a channel protein for a neuron:
http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v19/n2/full/nsmb.2215.html
vs.
http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v19/n2/full/nsmb.2197.html
Basically, the first guy said that this protein only had one binding site because he "proved" that the detergent used to solve the structure didn't change its structure any by solving the structure again in a different detergent.
The second guy showed undeniably that the different detergent, in addition to a variety of other conditions, inhibited protein function, basically meaning that the first guy just wasted a year of his life.
And both of these papers were published in the same journal at the same time. And this is Nature, which is like the best of the best. So, my point was more that papers can be flat out wrong and you always need to have some healthy skepticism when reading. After skimming through the DRACO paper, the main thing that caught my eye was that they were injecting DRACO three days after a mouse was infected. To me, this doesn't seem nearly long enough to be useful. I mean, most humans won't know whether or not they have an illness before they start showing symptoms and a good number diseases have an incubation time of longer than three days.
I'm also skeptical of the idea of inducing apoptosis, because that's kinda the thing that the body tries to prevent. I mean, wouldn't you expect the body to fight back against this drug and start making antibodies for it really quick if it was going around killing cells (even infected ones)? I mean, most viruses kill your cells to begin with, so you'd have to hope that you kill the cell before that virus is at any stage where it can replicate. And in the case of HIV, this seems like a bad way to just give yourself AIDS since all the cells you'll be destroying will your own immune system. That and HIV is lysogenic, so could just hide out in your DNA until the drug course is over.
I dunno. There's some sizable holes in there.
I'm aware of the nature of publication in journals.
http://jeremykun.com/2013/06/10/why-theoretical-computer-scientists-arent-worried-about-privacy/