science noob

This is about the recently proposed use of "in cellulo" to refer to observations made in isolated live cells, rather than in vitro which was (and still is) currently used for that purpose. Of course, this distinction has emerged from repeated (and often appropriate) remarks that in vitro also applies to experiments made in acellular systems (e.g. enzymatic assay in a test tube vs. the same assay using intact cells). Since in vivo always refers to observations made in whole organisms, there is this intermediate situation with tissue culture which needed some semantic distinction to emphasize the fact that it is in vivo but in vitro, like Schrödinger's cat

I know this has been discussed in a previous forum, but the final outcome should have been better... There was strong disagreement between members about the need for a distinction, but finally, the issue remained completely unresolved.

I don't intend to make a Solomon's judgement here. My position is that it is a relevant distinction to make and that it should be implemented slowly but surely from the base up, until usage in one way or another prevails.

However, I strongly object to the term "in cellulo" for a very simple reason: it's not even Latin! I have nothing against creating a new term as long as it follows the rules of nomenclature. And here, these rules are quite simple:all  similar expressions in biology are derived from Latin, not from some idea of Latin that some dunce had one ominous day when that expression was first forged and inserted in a publication !

Of course, no true classical Latin name exists for a living cell, but the scientific acceptations of the term in Latin are cella, -ae (fem.).(orig. a small chamber) and cellula, -ae (fem.) (orig. a ... very small chamber!). Since the terms in vitro and in vivo use the ablative case,  the properly derived term that parallels the two other accepted situations should be in cellaor in cellula (not "in cellulo"!!!).

In summary, the currently increasing use of "in cellulo" is incorrect since it does not respect the gender of the Latrin name for cell. One may argue that the Latin word "cellulum" ( which would be neutral) could be specially created to "force-fit" an ad hoc term for a phonetic equivalent to in vivo and in vitro, This could be justified by the fact that there is no true classical Latin word for a living cell, as mentioned above. However, there is a tradition in the scientific and medical literatures of the XVIII^th and XIX^th centuries (in Latin) established for either cella or cellula. Cellulum simply never existed!

At this stage, editors could easily agree to recommend a change to in cellula in the immediate future before the mistake becomes too widespread to make a change in direction.

I wouldn't expect a large fraction of the biological community to care about this, since Latin isn't part of the curriculum for most younger biologists. But for old geezers who happened to spend several high school years studying Latin, I cannot tell how much it hurts every time I see "in cellulo" in print !

I think I will insert in cellula in my next manuscript and see what happens ...

So, who's  with me? Or: "What? Me worry?"  

washes do for 10 mins each 3times after blocking,primary ab incubation and secondary ab incubation,this will reduce back ground properly this happend to me. in your case trimer your telling but  is your gel ,SDS reducing gel right? then how come trimer? have u heated sample for 5mins boiling before loading.?

If it still doesn't go away, and the negative control well has only a very faint band, why not just go ahead with the rest of the experiment? You can play around with the contrast settings when capturing the image to make this band disappear if your experimental reaction has a very bright band