Curtis

I don't think it's an experimental error.
First of all, how much higher are the levels than normal ? leelee's understanding is correct, there are certain cut-off values (higher than which the tumor markers are considered as elevated and thus indicate a tumor), but the extent of the elevation often plays a role. In case of PSA the value for free PSA would be interesting to know too, if it is indicated in the study.
Second, there are several factors (other than a tumor) which can induce some tumor markers - smoking can induce CA19-9, for instance. Here is a paper on non-malignant causes of CA19-9 increase:
http://edoc.hu-berli...lm.2009.152.pdf
I just wonder what was checked for (and what wasn't) when it is stated "in good health". So they try to make the point that high natural radiation increases PSA and CA19-9 ? There might be minor (possibly inflammatory) processes ongoing already which are of no clinical relevance.
Conversely, not all tumors of a certain type express the respective tumor marker at all, which is why they can only be used to control progression or remission of the disease if they were already elevated at the point of diagnosis. PSA is used for general prostate carcinoma screening, while CA19-9 cannot be used for general screening.

It should work as it is basically just vaccination, and very similar to making any antibody where just a peptide is used.  It would probably pay to use an adjuvant (e.g. Freund's) to increase the immune response.

The formula you have given looks like it should be t=r/Sqrt((1-r^2)/(N—2)) the t statistic for testing if the correlation coefficient is significant, it can then be converted to a p value using the T.DIST function in Excel.

You have a good point....I'm currently in a country with socialized healthcare etc.  Here, like everywhere else, the post-doc is a temporary situation.  Like any "job", if you don't like it then you should find something better.  The best strategy is to spend a significant portion of your time lining up a real career.  If making your current boss happy is going to further the career you want to pursue, then keep doing it.  If at the end of your time there, nobody is even going to ask to see a recommendation letter, then just do whatever you need to do to make yourself marketable.

I think this has to do with with the software. Did you copy and paste your article title from the bibliography or from another search engine to the Endnote search function?
If you did that, then Endnote consistently does something weird - it will paste it in rows (e.g. if row 1 fits 8 words and your title of interest has 16 words in it, then Endnote would assume that you had TWO sets of titles - so it automatically renders the first 8 words into row 1 and the rest in the next rows).  

What I normally do is either shorten your search title or manually 'join' the sentences together - example:

"Every time I search a long article title the Pubmed engine in Endnote can't find it."

will be recognised by Endnote as:

"Every time I search a long article title (ENTER)
the Pubmed engine in Endnote can't find it."

Although this is one of the bugs that the Endnote developers have missed after so many updates, I still think Endnote's search function is quite efficient and powerful.  Sometimes, by just searching the first 4-5 words in the title could yield the article you're looking for.  Sometimes I use the "AND" search function to combine the first 4 words of the title (manually typed in) with article year and/or first author surname.

May be you need to consider adding GGGAGA (highest product yields if the first 6 nucs are GGGAGA) after TATA.

see
http://www.protocol-...osts/25892.html

P.S.- just interpreting based on link in forum, refer to more literature.

PCR of repeats is used to measure their length, which is highly polymorphic. But since Taq ads additional A at the end in presumably (from the paper) unpredictible manner, and together with the fact that polymerase may slip on the repeats, it then creates multiple products from one reaction, differing around that one nucleotide.
Products are marked by fluorescent fwd primer and analysed in capillary electrophoresis (similar as sequencing). But the you got multiple signals for one length and if you are looking into dinucleotide repeats for example, it's really difficult to measure the right length then.
This is for the explanation why this is needed.

This seems to be the original paper about the added A.

Maybe more will be found in key papers about STR polymorfisms, like this one maybe, but I don't have the access. Validation of short tandem repeats (STRs) for forensic usage: performance testing of fluorescent multiplex STR systems and analysis of authentic and simulated forensic samples.
But from search seems, that adding tails (not just this particular sequence) is a common thing in STR amplification.
Keep me posted if you find out

Search PubMed for the T2 cell line AND MHC class I and you should find some helpful papers.  They are back in the mid-1990's.  Let me know if you have any trouble tracking them down and I can give you specific papers.

This looks as if it is an artifact of the gelling of the agarose.  I suspect that you have changed the way you are mixing or cooling the agarose before pouring the gel, and that some of it is setting more rapidly than other parts, leading to non-uniformity of the gel.  Make sure the agarose is well mixed and sufficiently warm before pouring the gel.  The solution should be crystal clear before pouring the gel.

madelingirly, on 02 September 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

Thank you Very much for proposing this method. I tried it on K562 and HL60 cells as well as PC3M and I get apoptosis. I tried both 56°C and 60°C and 37°C incubation thereafter and 56°C gave me 50% apoptosis out of which about 40-45 % was in late apoptosis and remarkably 60°C gave me 90% apoptosis (late apoptosis). This is an amazing method. Thank you for proposing it. Thanks once again.

Could u check this method

A good positive control for apoptosis: Heat shock the cells. Incubate 1 minute @ 56°C followed by incubation @ 37°C
dependent on cell type. Usually 1 hour @ 37°C after shock is sufficient to induce 50% apoptosis for most cell lines

Transfection, sorry.

The limiting size is not the problem here, the question is not whether it's possible to transfect with two plasmids, the question is, if he can transfect two separate plasmids, one with obviously different efficiency AND use the second plasmid to calculate the efficiency of the first.

It would be like measuring how much salt can dissolve in an amount of water by measuring how much sugar dissolves there.

Hello.
I would like to thank everybody for expressing his/her sympathy to my case. Special thanks for the practical clues too.
Well, teaching sounds great but in my country for 4th-5th year the only one University that provides study of Natural sciences has plenty of unoccupied positions for students - nobody wants to study life sciences, chemistry or physics because they are difficult and have no realisation here. Plus, all teaching positions are occupied until the rest of the eternity.
Research.....ah, the life here is as expensive as in the rest of EU (for some things like energy we pay much more) but salaries....I would be lucky if I get 250 Eu per month. And the system for grants is still very corrupted. And the whole society here is against people like me - here only the practical jobs are respected. This is why I wrote my topic....and I think I got some clues :-)
Finally, I am 35 years old and it is absolutely neccessary to give a birth as soon as possible.
In the name of God, I have been working all my life for this!
You see - it is not a matter of psychological depressia but of a real problem......that I hope to resolve somehow :-)
One more time thank all of you :-)

Dear All,
I have found out today that the protocol to make DTZ is working...just because my cell line do not contains zinc
Thank u ~

Mutagenesis is usually done with two mutagenesis primers, idealy on a circular template, with destruction of the original (not newly made) molecules.
Other way only half of your product will contain the mutation and the selection is difficult.

But as for efficiency of the primer with mismatch on 5' end, it will be actually better than the missmatch in the middle, see that it's a common practise to put  restiction sites that don't match on 5' ends. The closer the mismatch is to the 3' the worse AFAIK, for the efficiency. But mismatches near 5' end could cause the whole 5' end to unbind and then reduce the specifity of the primer, that is I think the reason why mutagenesis mismatches should be in the middle (but mutagenesis primers are quite long). If you have the primer long enough on the 3' part, this may not be serious issue.