HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thorn@bnlux1.bnl.gov (craig thorn)
Subject: Re: Heavy Water
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:46:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.152331.1426@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> nshomron@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Noam Shomron) writes:
>Can anyone supply me with information or references dealing with the effects of
>heavy water on human and animal physiology?  I would like to know if there
>have been any recent studies on this topic.

My understanding is that heavy water is quite toxic.  I believe that the
fact that a deuteron is twice as massive as a proton causes most of the
mitochondrial reactions which rely on proton gradients to only run half
as fast so you have a lot of trouble getting energy, and you die.  But
this is only based on hearsay, not research

-Kurt Thorn

thorn2@bnl.Gov

Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: ajohnson@algodones.unm.edu (Alan Johnson)
Subject: Re: Aquatic Microorg. in Sealed Flask -- is this unusual?
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 16:31:25 GMT
Organization: "University of New Mexico, Albuquerque"
Reply-To: ajohnson@algodones.unm.edu 

I am aware of research on aquatic ecosystems in sealed flasks that was
conducted by Dr. Clair Folsome and his students at the University of
Hawaii.  A good summary of their work is presented in:

     C.E. Folsome and J.A. Hanson. 1986. The emergence of materially-
         closed-system ecology.  Pages 269-288 in N. Polunin (ed.),
         Ecosystem Theory and Application, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

They claim to have established "that materially-closed but energetically-
open ecosystems in the 100 to 5,000 ml range can persist for tens of
years, and perhaps even indefinitely."  Unfortunately, Dr. Folsome died
a few years ago, but perhaps some of his colleagues have continued the
research.  A few other scientists have dabbled in the area of sealed-flask
ecosystems.  References to their work can be found in the Folsome and
Hanson paper cited above.
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski)
Subject: Re: Mutations: Mostly Harmful, or Not?
Reply-To: winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Nashua NH
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:32:08 GMT


In article <1992Jul22.152155.3619@HQ.Ileaf.COM>,
bcking@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Christine King) writes:
|>
|>On another thread ("Better Living through DNA Encryption"), Jonathan Dale
|>(jdale@cats.ucsc.edu) writes:
|>
|>  ...You could probably simplify it a lot (at least the engineering
|>  parts) by ripping out all the useless garbage in our DNA, which is
|>  over 95% (?) useless....
|>
|>I keep reading and hearing statements like this.  Then there's the one
|>that goes, "Most mutations are fatal."
|>
|>Aren't those two statements contradictory?

Yep.

|>  I mean, if most DNA is
|>useless (non-coding, non-promoting, non-error-detecting), then aren't
|>most mutations harmless?  Or the other way around, if most mutations
|>are fatal/harmful, then isn't most DNA meaningful?

Precisely.

In fact, neither of the two statements is true, as stated above.  Most mutations
are not fatal.  Most make little or no difference whatsoever.  It's probably
true that more mutations are harmful than beneficial, simply because when you
introduce a random change in an organized structure, you stand a better chance
of screwing it up than enhancing it.  What *is* true is that most chromosome
number changes (trisomy, monosomy) are fatal.  Down's Syndrome, Kleinfelter's
Syndrome (XXY), and Turner's Syndrome (X0) are some of the few that aren't.
That's probably where people get the "all mutations are harmful" canard from.

I'd be very careful about saying that 95% of the DNA is useless, given the
very limited knowledge we have at this point about what's in human DNA and
how cells work (and especially, how development of multicelled organisms from
egg to adult works).

--PSW
From: dsilver@garnet.berkeley.edu (Daniel H. Silver)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Venter Deal: Comments?
Date: 23 Jul 1992 17:18:25 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu
Originator: dsilver@garnet.berkeley.edu

A friend of mine wrote me the following:

"I would be interested in seeing if anyone on the net has a 
comment about Craig Venter's deal. 
He is the scientist at the National Institutes of Health 
who discovered a way to produce thousands of DNA lookalike 
fragments, purged of all the noncoding, presumably nonsense 
segments.  They're call cDNA, for complementary DNA, and 
he may have found a way to shortcut the massive Human Genome 
Project. Two difficulties, at least: 1--NIH has filed for 
patents--on human DNA! And we're talking thousands of genes, 
whose function he doesn't pretend to know at this point.  
2--He's leaving NIH, to join a new foundation set up just for 
him by a venture capital firm called Health Care Investors of Boston, 
which is also setting up a company for the project.  
There was an argument that at least these patents would belong to 
the federal government, which might be assumed to act in the best
interests of (U.S., rich) humanity, but now that Venter has
"sold out" to a private firm, any future genes he discovers
via this method, will be available only to this company...Of
course, the patents have only just been FILED for, and no
one knows whether they will be granted. The usual obstacle
suggested is that he doesn't know the use of his cDNA
pieces, since he doesn't know the function of the gene they
represent. However, they're perfectly useful as is as probes
and research tools, and besides, he/NIH can always add new
uses later in the patent process."  

Any comments?  E-mail or posted replies are fine.
Also appreciated would be any suggestions for cross-posting.
 
Daniel H. Silver                                      "Memory is a kind
Department of Psychology, UCB         of accomplishment,
dsilver@garnet.berkeley.edu                    a sort of renewal . . ."
Disclaimer: me not ucb                 ((((((((((((((((*))))))))))))))))
From: mcginnis@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Two questions:  MHC I & II and GABA
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:18:27 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

I am a non-biologist (but fairly well informed layman) and I would
like some information on two matters:

-MHC I & II molecules and what they're used for.  How the body uses
 them to learn self versus nonself for immunology.  How these determine
 our own unique scents (which animals with better olfactory systems
 can use for recognition).  I have read a few articles referring to
 these but I would like to know much more.

-GABA.  What sorts of brain structures it is associated with.  Typical
 effects of GABA blockers and/or enhancers.  Is it associated with
 pleasure?  Manic behaviour?  Seizures?  How?

I prefer Email replys.  Any information is appreciated.  Referrals
to magazine articles would be great.

Thanks in advance.

Michael McGinnis                Internet: mcginnis@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Computer Center                   Bitnet: mcginnis@ukanvax
University of Kansas               Voice: (913)864-0413
Lawrence, KS  66045                  FAX: (913)864-0485

Rust never sleeps.
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: rim@csadfa.cs.adfa.oz.au (Bob McKay)
Subject: Intestinal Flora
Summary: Normal intestinal flora constituents other than Lactobacillus?
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:06:08 GMT


There's been a lot of hype recently about the importance of Lactobacillus
acidophilus as a constituent of the intestinal flora. I'm a little sceptical,
since I gather that lactose is essential for the survival of this species, yet
the vast majority of people from non-European cultures do not drink milk, and
lack the gene for lactase (which is likely of recent origin even in European 
populations). I find it hard to believe that digestive equilibrium is one of
Europe's great contributions to humanity, so I'm interested to find out what
the major constituents of the healthy human gut flora consist of in non-milk-
drinking societies. Can anyone help?

-- 
Bob McKay		   Phone:	+61 6 268 8169	    fax: +61 6 268 8581
Dept. Computer Science		Internet:	rim@csadfa.cs.adfa.oz.au
ADFA, Northcott Dve 		UUCP:...!uunet!munnari!csadfa.cs.adfa.oz.au!rim
Campbell ACT 2600 AUSTRALIA	ARPA:	rim%csadfa.cs.adfa.oz.au@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: jbh@anat.UMSMED.EDU (James B. Hutchins)
Subject: Re: origin of gelatin
Summary: Where there's collagen... 
Keywords: There's always more room for Jello!
Organization: Dept. of Anatomy, Univ. Mississippi Medical Center
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:14:59 GMT

In article <KH.92Jul30110853@litsun17.epfl.ch> kh@litsun.epfl.ch writes:
>Does anybody know what the origin of gelatin (foodstuff) is?
>
>Opinions on red.food.cooking range from hooves to skin to cow bones. 
>Animal matter anyway. Is pectin the same, or something different?
>...


Gelatin comes from all (or any) of the sources you name.  Anything that
contains the protein collagen (that is, most all connective tissue) can
be made into gelatin.

Pectin, on the other hand, is only found in plants, so only plants with
hooves make gelatin :-)

Jim

-- 
Jim Hutchins                    []     E-Mail: jbh@anat.umsmed.edu
Dept of Anatomy                 []
Univ Mississippi Med Ctr        []
Xref: sparky sci.bio:2728 sci.med:14317 sci.cryonics:443
From: scottk@nuclease.berkeley.edu (Number Ten Ox)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.med,sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Better Living through DNA Encryption
Date: 23 Jul 1992 06:13:38 GMT
Organization: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, U.C. Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: nuclease.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Jul22.230106.103@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, 
kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown) writes:

|> The radiation-resistant bug I know a little about is *micrococcus
|> radiodurans*, and it was discovered during early attempts to radiation-
|> sterilize foods.  I believe it is an archebacterium.  It withstands

Hmmm. I studied this bug for my undergrad thesis, and last I remember
(albeit five years ago) it was classified as a eubacterium. It's 
genus was changed a number of years ago from Micrococcus to Deinococcus,
and it's one of a number of Deinococci with this amazing radiation
resistance (ref: Brooks and Murray, 1981, Int. J. Syst. Bact., 31: 353).

|> four million rads without special culturing, six million rads with special
|> culturing, and has been cultured with fission products.  It protects itself
|> from radiation damage with large amounts of superoxide dismutase and catalase
|> among other things.  The original paper is at least 30 years old, and the 
|> author is Raj.

I have the original citation as Anderson et al. (1956) Food Technology,
v10, pp 575-577. When I studied this bug, it was far from clear that
the antioxidant enzymes were responsible for the radiation resistance.
My project was actually to purify the superoxide dismutase from D. radio-
durans, so I was pretty familiar with the literature at the time. Have
there been new reports in the last 5 years? I'd be interested to know,
but I haven't been following the story very closely. My impression
from my undergrad days was that the highly efficient DNA repair mechanisms
of this bacterium were thought to be responsible for the unusual
resistance.



-- 
       ____         Scott Keeney, DNA repair-queer         ____
       \  /           scottk@mendel.berkeley.edu           \  /
        \/        Biochemistry and Molecular Biology        \/ 
                            U.C. Berkeley
From: barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Edwin Barkdoll)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Do birds pant?
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:30:54 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Jul20.214719.3625@u.washington.edu> pkemp@byron.u.washington.edu (Paul Kemp) writes:
>It's been quite hot and dry in Seattle this summer and I've noticed that many
>birds are hopping around with their beaks open. I've seen it in crows, sparrows
>and finches but not in the ducks or geese.  I've never noticed birds doing this
>before and was wondering if they were temperature regulating?
>pk

	I and some others have been flight training a red tailed hawk,
who after a hard workout will open mouth breath, i.e. pant.  Birds in
general will pant when hot to thermoregulate and after exertion,
perhaps also to thermoregulate.  I've also seen birds pant when overly
stressed.  I don't know if the latter instance also is a result of
high body temp.

Edwin Barkdoll
barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu
eb3@world.std.com
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Brain Size vs. intelligence
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:17:26 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Jul24.004836.5223@Princeton.EDU> hjcho@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Hae Jean Cho) writes:
|I recently read that 19th century scientists originally claimed that
|brain size (mass?) was directly related to intelligence, until it was
|realized that then human beings would have to admit that blue whales
|were the most intelligent beings on earth.  So then the criterion
|became brain mass per total body mass, but then they would have had to
|conclude that women are, in general, more intelligent than men.  So
|the argument was largely abandoned....
|
|I do not recall the name of the original source.  I read this in
|Gloria Steinem's book on self-esteem.

As far as I know this has not been 'abandoned', the Encephalization Quotient
(relative brain size) is still regularly used in estimating the relative
intelligence of various species of animals.  (Of course no one is goose
enough to claim that relative brain size is the *sole* determinant of
intelligence, just that it is 'correlated').

[Now, given that Gloria Steinem (?sp) had a political agenda to meet,
I would treat her 'science' with a good bit of sceptism anyway]
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: jdale@cats.ucsc.edu (Jonathan Dale)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Mutations: Mostly Harmful, or Not?
Date: 23 Jul 92 04:31:47 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <robison1.711848670@husc10> robison1@husc10.harvard.edu (Keith Robison) writes:
>	The "95% of human DNA is junk" gem is frequently stated,
>but methinks it simply illustrates our ignorance of genome organization
>and function.  Much of that DNA may well be along for a free ride,
>but much of it may be important for chromosome structure and as spacing
>elements (remember that many eukaryotic control elements can act over
>great distances along the sequence or even between spatially close but
>different DNA molecules).
>
>Keith Robison
>Harvard University
>Program in Biochemistry, Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology

On the other hand, many genes are repeated, some appearing huge numbers of
times.  In terms of information, the copies are "junk".  They probably serve
to ensure that one mutation will not be fatal; there are many places where
redundancy is a defense against mutations in the DNA.  With the addition of
a CRC, they would be unnecessary.  [Although they play a role in evolution;
protecting the DNA could eliminate one source of variation in the gene pool.
This is a dilemma.]  Also, long regions at the ends and middle of each 
chromosome have non-coding repeats.  These probably help provide structure,
but again are redundant.  If you reduced the number of chromosomes by putting
all the information from the non-sex chromosomes on just one chromosome,
you would eliminate a lot of this.  I think the idea of 95% being junk
is mostly based on the belief that there is also a lot of space between
coding regions; this is where there is plenty of ignorance.  Certainly
we have been surprised by the distance between promoters and coding regions.
I can't say how much affect this has on the 95% number.  I also don't know
how much of the DNA is redundant, percentage-wise.
Xref: sparky sci.bio:2770 rec.arts.sf.science:2365
From: toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Another _Jurassic Park_ mistake
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:48:46 GMT
Followup-To: sci.bio
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center

In article <1992Jul27.222854.27557@rigel.econ.uga.edu>
hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes) writes:
>
>The following correspondence appeared in the recent issue of _Nature_
>(A.C. Christensen and S Henikoff, Nature 358, 271 (1992)).

They were not the first people to publish on this topic,
and they neglected to cite a previous worker:

@article{Boguski1992,
author = "M. S. Boguski",
title = "A Molecular Biologist Visits {{\em Jurassic Park}}",
journal = "BioTechniques",
volume = "12",
number = "5",
month = "May",
pages = "668-669",
year = "1992"}

  Tom Schneider
  National Cancer Institute
  Laboratory of Mathematical Biology
  Frederick, Maryland  21702-1201
  toms@ncifcrf.gov
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski)
Subject: Re: Mutations: Mostly Harmful, or Not?
Reply-To: winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Nashua NH
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:52:44 GMT


In article <1992Jul22.230330.5639@u.washington.edu>,
toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:
|>
|>In article <1992Jul22.223208.8136@rdg.dec.com>
|>winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) writes:
|>[stuff on prevalence of harmful mutations deleted]
|>>What *is* true is that most chromosome
|>>number changes (trisomy, monosomy) are fatal.  Down's Syndrome, Kleinfelter's
|>>Syndrome (XXY), and Turner's Syndrome (X0) are some of the few that aren't.
|>
|>In mammals, at least, this is generally true.  Taken across all taxa,
|>though, many ploidy changes are nonlethal and often beneficial (polyploid
|>cultivated plants leap to mind).  Monosomics and trisomics are
|>common genetic stocks in many plant breeding programs.
|>
|>>That's probably where people get the "all mutations are harmful" canard from.
|>
|>If it is, somebody failed to look outside his/her immediate phylogenetic
|>neighborhood to test the canard :-)

I was very careful to say polySOMY, not polyPOLIDY, precisely because I knew
about these cases in the plant phyla.  I don't think even most plant species
will react very well to one chromosome (as opposed to the whole set, as is
the case in polypolidy) being duplicated, or one member of the pair being
deleted.

--PSW
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll)
Subject: Re: Do birds pant?
Keywords: birds, hyperventilate
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:27:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.203524.3894@hubcap.clemson.edu> glenn_birrenkott@quickmail.clemson.edu writes:
>In article <84185@netnews.upenn.edu> barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Edwin
>Barkdoll) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul20.214719.3625@u.washington.edu>
>pkemp@byron.u.washington.edu (Paul Kemp) writes:
>>>It's been quite hot and dry in Seattle this summer and I've noticed that many
>>>birds are hopping around with their beaks open. I've seen it in crows,
>sparrows
>>>and finches but not in the ducks or geese.  I've never noticed birds doing
>this
>>>before and was wondering if they were temperature regulating?
>>>pk
>>
>>	I and some others have been flight training a red tailed hawk,
>>who after a hard workout will open mouth breath, i.e. pant.  Birds in
>>general will pant when hot to thermoregulate and after exertion,
>>perhaps also to thermoregulate.  I've also seen birds pant when overly
>>stressed.  I don't know if the latter instance also is a result of
>>high body temp.
>>
>>Edwin Barkdoll
>>barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu
>>eb3@world.std.com
>>
>Because the avian respiratory system differs so markedly from that of mammals
>(air sacs, lack of diaphram, etc.) I'm not sure that we should say that birds
>"pant".

	Panting, to me, indicates primarily dead space ventilation,
and is therefore not limited to mammals.  

>Birds do increase respiration in an effort to theroregulate.  This is usually
>in the
>form of a "gular flutter".

	Gular fluttering is not generally considered to involve
ventilation of the lungs and is therefore distinct from panting with
respect to the respiratory surfaces involved, although the two may
occur at the same time in some avian species.

	Different species' response to thermal stress may include
panting and gular fluttering together, panting alone or panting and
gular fluttering independently (see vol II below). 

	For discussions of panting gular fluttering and differences
between the two see _Avian biology_ Vol I (ch7) Biology of desert birds;
IV (ch4) Thermal and caloric relations of birds; II (ch5) Respiratory
function in birds.  Also Central nervous mechanisms regulating thermal
panting, Richards and Avery; Control of panting by thermosensitive
spinal neurons in birds, Rautenberg et al.  These latter two are in
_Respiratory Function in Birds, Adult and Embryonic_ ed. J. Piper
(1978)

>Glenn Birrenkott, 
>Poultry Science Dept.
>Clemson University
>Clemson, SC  29634-0379


-- 
Edwin Barkdoll
eb3@world.std.com
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R)
Subject: Re: Brain Size vs. intelligence
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:30:51 GMT


I ran across an interesting tidbit about this:  A fairly famous scientist, 
whose name I have forgotten, specialized in anatomy and set out to "prove"
that not only was brain size an indicator of intelligence but that women's 
brains were smaller than men's, thus showing the intellectual superiority of 
men.  He showed that men's brains were about 100 grams larger, on the average
than women's.  After his death, his brain was measured and found to be smaller
than the average for women's brain.  

-- 
Allen Gordon 		         *If the folly of but one of us was changed to*
Research Associate         	 *intelligence, and divided amongst a thousand*
gordon@tramp.colorado.edu   	 *toads, each would be more intelligent than  *
				 *Aristotle				      *
From: crystal@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Crystal)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Do birds pant?
Date: 25 Jul 92 02:40:26 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

In <84185@netnews.upenn.edu> barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.214719.3625@u.washington.edu> pkemp@byron.u.washington.edu (Paul Kemp) writes:
>>It's been quite hot and dry in Seattle this summer and I've noticed that many
>>birds are hopping around with their beaks open. I've seen it in crows, sparrows
>>and finches but not in the ducks or geese.  I've never noticed birds doing this
>>before and was wondering if they were temperature regulating?
>>pk

>	I and some others have been flight training a red tailed hawk,
>who after a hard workout will open mouth breath, i.e. pant.  Birds in
>general will pant when hot to thermoregulate and after exertion,
>perhaps also to thermoregulate.  I've also seen birds pant when overly
>stressed.  I don't know if the latter instance also is a result of
>high body temp.

>Edwin Barkdoll
>barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu
>eb3@world.std.com

Aren't Red-tailed Hawks protected?  I listen to several outside my window
here in Seattle, and I was under the impression that it was illegal to have
one in your possession without a permit.  This was from a neighbor who tried
to save a baby RT Hawk and was chewed out royally by the wild bird people. (it
was being pecked at by crows while on the ground)

Crystal