evolution - Is there theory that connects longevity, time-scale of environmental disturbance, and adaptation?

Not exactly matching your question, but I think that the idea (from stochastic demography) that life histories should be buffered against environmental variability in influential vital rates (Pfister, 1998, Morris & Doak, 2004) can be related to this issue, even if it is mainly (originally) dealing with stationary environmental fluctuations.

In general, fluctuations in vital rates cause the stochastic population growth rate to decrease. This can be described by Tuljapurkar's approximation (Tuljapurkar, 1982):

$$log \lambda_s = log \lambda_d - \frac {1}{2\lambda_d^2} \sum_{i,j} V(a_{ij})S^2_{ij}-\phi$$

where $\lambda_s$ is the stochastic growth rate, $\lambda_d$ is the deterministic growth rate based on average conditions, $V(a_{ij})$ is variance in vital rates (here matrix entires) and $S^2_{ij}$ is sensitivity in vital rates. $\phi$ represents covariances between rates, which can be important, but can sometimes be ignored for simplicity. This equation shows that the effect of variability in vital rates on stochastic growth rate (which can be interpreted as a measure of fitness) is a product of sensitivity to change and the amount of variability.

Because of the negative consequences on stochastic population growth, selection is expected to minimize variance in population growth rate. Pfister (1998) predicted (based on an evolutionary argument and the equation above) that a species should have smaller temporal variances in the life history traits it is most sensitive to. Therefore, across species, there should be a negative correlation between the sensitivity and the temporal variance of vital rates. This also means that the evolution of life histories and the tolerance of species to variability in environmental conditions are shaped by their life-history patterns.

A consequence of this is that in a long-lived species (as an example), you should find larger variabilty in juvenile survival than in adult survival, since population growth rate is more sensitive to variability in the latter. The lower variability in adult survival can then be seen as an expression of "hardiness" to variability in environmental conditions, and this theory can therefore be used to understand likely evolutionary trajectories of different species, also under a climate change scenario. The ways to minimize the negative effects of variability in population growth in this theory is to either be hardy in important traits (change in environmental conditions doesn't translate much into variability in vital rate) or to decrease the sensitivity in vital rates that vary a lot (which amounts to modifying the life-history pattern of the species). Your question mainly deals with longevity, and this is influenced by both maturation age and adult survival. Therefore, this theory can be useful to think about which species should develop a "hardy" strategy.

However, this answer completely ignores tipping-points in environmental tolerances, nonlinear responses and the genetic variation that selection can act on.

Related articles you might want to check out are Van de Pool et al (2010), Morris et al. (2008) and Doak et al 2005.

neuroscience - Do people with colorblindness have less cones or no cones of a certain type?

This is a complicated case, as it can have multiple causes.
The genes which are coding for the long (L, yellow) and medium (M, green) wavelength photopigments are located head-to-tail on the X chromosome. This is the reason why this colors are affected much more and especially in men (which only have one copy of this chromosome).

What seems to happen mostly is that the photopigment of one type of cone cells (and their neuronal connectivity) is missing, while the density of the cone cells is still the same. This means that the cells are they, but are not functioning. See these publications (when you have problems getting the articles, let me know in the comments, I can help):

What can additionally happen in some cases is that these cones have a different pigment than they should have. See the third paper above for details.

botany - What's the name of the fibrous strands that hold the seeds in a pumpkin?

If you cut open a pumpkin, the seeds are suspended inside the pumpkin by some fibrous, slimey strands. You can see them in the middle of this sliced-open pumpkin:

I'm writing a post for the Cooking.SE blog, and am trying to find out the proper botanical term. Someone suggested that might be called the endocarp, but I want to make sure and also see if there is a more specific term.

Edit

In "Morpho-Physiological Aspects of Productivity and Quality in Squash and Pumpkins (Cucurbita spp.)" §C.1, I see this:

In the central portion of the fruit, a mass of tough fibers, together with vascular strands connected to the seeds, comprise the placental tissue. The endocarp is made up of small, thin-walled cells that form a membranous tissue that adheres to seed, becoming a transparent skin on dried seeds. (emphasis added)

Am I reading correctly that the name for this part of the pumpkin is "placental tissue", and that the endocarp is just a thin layer on the seeds themselves?

human biology - How does the brain's energy consumption depend on mental activity?

I answered on the facts of this question already on skeptics.SE, here and here. You should read both papers very carefully, I highlighted the most important facts but this is a very tricky question, esp. when it comes to defining what mental activitiy is. The papers also give an explanation of how fMRI signal is linked to NEURONAL activity, as far as I remember there is no strong direct link.

You assume in your question that a mathematician solving a differential equation needs higher mental activity than a child reading a book. Is this legitimate? It seems intuitive but also very subjective. In the paper they mention that for the highest and lowest energy consumption we lose consciousness. I will not draw conclusions from this. However, you are talking about conscious mental activities so this may answer your question. To me it means more that the understanding of the human brain in neurobiololgy is on the level of the Rutherford Atomic Model in Physics at the beginning of the 20th century. We have not really got a clue how information is processed and how it's constrained by physical laws and principles of entropy and energy. By reading the 2 papers it looks more like the human brain is not raising energy consumption as a computer would (the computer analogy pretty much fails when compared to the human brain). Most of the energy is used for unconscious processes in "standby mode".

As in physics, extreme cases such as savants and the mentally disabled are probably the best starting point to exclude possible models of human brain and physical boundary conditions as we cannot approach the questions of human brain in a reductionistic way. How can savants like Kim Peek process such huge amounts of information AND save it. He is able to scan books pages just once and know them by heart thereafter. His brain does not, however, consume more energy than an average human brain. So mental activity is probably not a very good term, quantity, or even really suited to be scientifically used. Does neuronal activity mean mental activity (in the sense of your definition?) Reading the papers, the problem is the separation of mental and neuronal activities. At first you have to know what are the basic brain functions and processes that are consuming most of the energy. However the brain is not built in modular way like a computer (most energy is used here for constantly refreshing RAM). So there is not really a objective way to analyse and separate this modular energy consumption, if it even is modular.

In my opinion, most models about information processing in human brain are intuitive guessing (again Rutherford). We need much more detailed experiments and data (Blue Brain Project). fMRi is like analysing a atom with a magnifying glass. Also, the more prosperous approach from a biophysical perspective is probably not the level of "mental activity" but the hard-based amount of information processed by human brains and linked energy consumption (Kim Peek). But therefore we need a model of how this information is saved in human brain. Do normal humans save the same information as Kim Peek scanning a page or are we just unable to recall it consciouscly? When solving a differential equation, how much energy do you consume when recalling facts and is that experience not similar to reading a book? How much is mental logical tasks and is there really a difference at all?

I will stop here, hope you gained some insight that the question is of course important but too early to be definitively answered. I think we will learn a lot more from projects like Blue Brain as we have from fMRI experiments.

biochemistry - Which hydroxyl from either the phosphate or the glycerol is taken during synthesis of a phospholipid head?

My recollection is that the formation of a phospholipid normally involves acylation of glycerol 3-phosphate. Glycerol 3-phosphate is a glycolytic intermediate, and so there is no actual phosphorylation of a glycerol; the phosphate on the glycerol will have come from the phosphorylation of glucose or of fructose 6-phosphate.

In a kinase reaction the oxygen of the -OH in the acceptor acts as a nucleophile at the P of the phosphate, so in terms of your question the O atom comes from the acceptor, not the donor. Presumably if there was a glycerol kinase (I expect there is) it would have the same mechanism so the O would come from the glycerol.

human biology - Does difference in expected life duration between men and women have biological nature?

It is known that men in most countries live less than women. I wonder whether it is due to different life conditions or because male and female organisms differ?

For example, I heard that testosterone may cause cardiovascular deceases. Is it true? Are there other biological mechanisms that can shorten men's lifespan?

biochemistry - Why can't the brain and red blood cells use fuels other than glucose?

The question is rather straight forward: I have always been curious as to why, but cannot find an explanation online.

I can imagine that the mechanism is different for each, but why does brain tissue and red blood cells use specifically and only glucose for energy metabolism?

evolution - When did vision evolve for the first time?

I'll address the question in the title "At which time did sight evolve for the first time?" by assuming that by the evolution of vision, we mean the evolution of the eye.

Molluscs are an excellent phylum to investigate this question because they exhibit a wide range of eye designs and levels of complexity.

At the most basic level, limpets such as Patella exhibit small patches of photoreceptor cells lying in a relatively flat configuration. Slightly more advanced is Pleurotomaria which has photoreceptors and pigmentation cells held in an eyecup. We then have the pinhole camera style eye as seen in Nautilus (see this post), and more complex eyes with a cornea, retina, and lense such as those seen in squid (e.g. Loligo).

Assuming that "a patch of photoreceptors" in an animal counts as an eye, then we should probably looking for marine invertebrates. The problem here is that if they had only soft body parts we might struggle to identify the oldest examples in sediments.

One candidate for the "earliest eye" might be urbilatarians - the hypothesized last common ancestor of the clade bilatarians - which probably evolved at the end of the Ediacaran period (~555 Myr). An example would be Kimberella (described here) which might or might not have been a mollusc and might or might not have had photoreceptors!

(credit : wikipedia)

zoology - Will a garter snake eat unusual prey if made to smell like something normal?

Yes, changing the scent has been accepted by most snake breeders as a method to feed stubborn snakes (reference). For example, if your snake prefers chicken, and wont accept mice, rub a chick on a pre-killed mouse and this may trick it into eating the mouse (reference). With regard to garter snakes, the diet may change based on its habitat, its age and even being kept in captivity can change its diet. This article should provide you information with feeding your garter snake if it is stubborn (reference).

gel electrophoresis - How do SDS-PAGE gels differ in a Bis-Tris system vs. a Tris-Glycine system?

SDS PAGE system rely on the fact that protein is denatured and surrounded by the SDS negatively charged detergent micelle. This eliminates most of the charge and idiosyncratic solubility differences from one protein to another and gives a reasonable separation based only on size of the protein which is related to the size of the SDS micelle around each molecule.

Bis-Tris and Tris-glycine buffers have quite different charge shielding characteristics. Bis (also known as 2-[Bis(2-hydroxyethyl)amino]-2-(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol) has a tertiary amine with a pKa of 6.46 and a pKb of 7.54. glycine is a zwitterion at any pH between 2.3 and 9.6. This creates a difference in the way that the buffer shields the SDS PAGE micelles from the rest of the electrical field, slowing down (probably glycine slows things down a bit) the time to resolution, but also giving the micelles more time to migrate.

So for SDS PAGE systems, the resolution of the gel has at least as much to do with the size of the gel pores (based on the acrylamide and bis-acrylamide percentages), the amount of protein you are putting into a given volume of loading well, and the size differences of the bands you are tying to separate. (you need to get pretty lucky to separate a 100.54 kda band from a 100.85 kDa band, but 1.5 to 1.8 kDa is easier 10 to 14 kDa is even easier). Also consider adjusting the current or voltage of the power supply. The buffer system is only one consideration in planning your experiment and often not the primary factor of quality.

cell biology - What is the title of Darwin's paper on cellular structure?

Darwin had written lots of papers which dealt with fertilization (which involves single cells), as he primarily dealt with the reproduction, continuation and thus evolution of a species, but these did not deal with cell biology specifically.

After a closer look at the complete list of all his publications, I found that he did have two cell-related publishings, specifically about the size of cells, one entitled Bees in Jamaica increase the size and substance of their cells, and the other, Bee-cells in Jamaica not larger than in England, in which he retracts the statement he had made in the previous article.

Ultimately, to answer your question, it seems as though none of his works dealt with cellular structures.

---

References

• Charles Darwin. "Bees in Jamaica increase the size and substance of their cells". Journal of Horticulture (15 July): 305.




• Charles Darwin. "Bee-cells in Jamaica not larger than in England." Journal of Horticulture (22 July): 323.

evolution - How many times did life emerge from the ocean?

I presume you mean how many times did life emerge from the ocean? ("how often" implies you want to know the regularity). Anyway, great question. I really enjoyed reading and thinking about it.

I doubt we know the precise number, or even anywhere near it. But there are several well-supported theorised colonisations which might interest you and help to build up a picture of just how common it was for life to transition to land. We can also use known facts about when different evolutionary lineages diverged, along with knowledge about the earlier colonisations of land, to work some events out for ourselves. I've done it here for broad taxonomic clades at different scales - if interested you could do the same thing again for lower sub-clades.

As you rightly point out, there must have been at least one colonisation event for each lineage present on land which diverged from other land-present lineages before the colonisation of land. Using the evidence and reasoning I give below, at the very least, the following 9 independent colonisations occurred:

• bacteria


• cyanobacteria


• archaea


• protists


• fungi


• algae


• plants


• nematodes


• arthropods


• vertebrates

Bacterial and archaean colonisation
The first evidence of life on land seems to originate from 2.6 (Watanabe et al., 2000) to 3.1 (Battistuzzi et al., 2004) billion years ago. Since molecular evidence points to bacteria and archaea diverging between 3.2-3.8 billion years ago (Feng et al.,1997 - a classic paper), and since both bacteria and archaea are found on land (e.g. Taketani & Tsai, 2010), they must have colonised land independently. I would suggest there would have been many different bacterial colonisations, too. One at least is certain - cyanobacteria must have colonised independently from some other forms, since they evolved after the first bacterial colonisation (Tomitani et al., 2006), and are now found on land, e.g. in lichens.

Protistan, fungal, algal, plant and animal colonisation
Protists are a polyphyletic group of simple eukaryotes, and since fungal divergence from them (Wang et al., 1999 - another classic) predates fungal emergence from the ocean (Taylor & Osborn, 1996), they must have emerged separately. Then, since plants and fungi diverged whilst fungi were still in the ocean (Wang et al., 1999), plants must have colonised separately. Actually, it has been explicitly discovered in various ways (e.g. molecular clock methods, Heckman et al., 2001) that plants must have left the ocean separately to fungi, but probably relied upon them to be able to do it (Brundrett, 2002 - see note at bottom about this paper). Next, simple animals... Arthropods colonised the land independently (Pisani et al, 2004), and since nematodes diverged before arthropods (Wang et al., 1999), they too must have independently found land. Then, lumbering along at the end, came the tetrapods (Long & Gordon, 2004).

Note about the Brundrett paper: it has OVER 300 REFERENCES! That guy must have been hoping for some sort of prize.

References

• Battistuzzi FU, Feijao A, Hedges SB. 2004. A genomic timescale of prokaryote evolution: insights into the origin of methanogenesis, phototrophy, and the colonization of land. BMC Evol Biol 4: 44.


• Brundrett MC. 2002. Coevolution of roots and mycorrhizas of land plants. New Phytologist 154: 275–304.


• Feng D-F, Cho G, Doolittle RF. 1997. Determining divergence times with a protein clock: Update and reevaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94: 13028 –13033.


• Heckman DS, Geiser DM, Eidell BR, Stauffer RL, Kardos NL, Hedges SB. 2001. Molecular Evidence for the Early Colonization of Land by Fungi and Plants. Science 293: 1129 –1133.


• Long JA, Gordon MS. 2004. The Greatest Step in Vertebrate History: A Paleobiological Review of the Fish‐Tetrapod Transition. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 77: 700–719.


• Pisani D, Poling LL, Lyons-Weiler M, Hedges SB. 2004. The colonization of land by animals: molecular phylogeny and divergence times among arthropods. BMC Biol 2: 1.


• Taketani RG, Tsai SM. 2010. The influence of different land uses on the structure of archaeal communities in Amazonian anthrosols based on 16S rRNA and amoA genes. Microb Ecol 59: 734–743.


• Taylor TN, Osborn JM. 1996. The importance of fungi in shaping the paleoecosystem. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 90: 249–262.


• Wang DY, Kumar S, Hedges SB. 1999. Divergence time estimates for the early history of animal phyla and the origin of plants, animals and fungi. Proc Biol Sci 266: 163–171.


• Watanabe Y, Martini JEJ, Ohmoto H. 2000. Geochemical evidence for terrestrial ecosystems 2.6 billion years ago. Nature 408: 574–578.

physiology - Are the byproducts of mammalian digestion simply depleted versions of the food or liquid consumed?

The answer really depends on what aspect of the urine and feces one is considering.

On the atomic level, no, urine and feces are composed entirely of atoms taken from our environment. As one would expect, as there is no "Humanium" on the periodic table. In fact, all the atoms in urine and feces were originally created by stars.

On the molecular level, yes. The body produces molecules that we do not ingest, or that we ingest in minute quantities, such as urea and bile.

On the cellular level, yes. The body produces, for instance, red blood cells even if the person eats a vegan diet with no blood intake. The proteins that make up the cells are created by breaking down ingested proteins into their constituent amino acids, which are then used to construct new proteins.

Also at the cellular level are the huge amount of bacterial cells that we support. Estimates of the number of bacterial cells in our body range from ten to 100 times the number of our own cells. The bacterial component in feces is massive - up to 1/3 of feces by weight are bacteria. Urine, being produced from the blood by the kidneys, is relatively sterile.

pcr - When designing primers how important is the GC clamp?

I will offer my own (empirical) account of primer design. A GC-clamp aids in specificity of the priming and therefore contributes to the overall efficiency of the PCR reaction. In the past, I have (out of necessity) designed primers that had both too much GC-clamping on the 3' end, and used primers without any GC-clamping. These PCR reactions were performed successfully, with differing levels of primer-dimer formation and overall efficiency.

In my experience, GC-clamping is nice, but not strictly required for good PCR. My general rule-of-thumb is to terminate my primers with 2 G/C wherever possible. If something is going to fail, it is not usually the PCR.

entomology - Are mosquitoes repelled by high frequency sound?

After seeing your question, I decided to do a bit of research on the topic.

---

---

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/jws-mrt041607.php

"Mosquito repellents that emit high-pitched sounds don't prevent
bites"

Some key-points from the webpage:

---

A Cochrane Systematic Review of the use of electronic mosquito repellents (EMRs) failed to find any evidence that they work.

---

To test these claims a team of Cochrane Researchers conducted a systematic review looking for trials conducted with EMRs. They located ten field trials that had been carried out in various parts of the world. None of these trials showed any evidence that EMRs work.

---

All ten studies found that there was no difference in the number of mosquitoes found on the bare body parts of the human participants with or without an EMR

---

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_repellent

These electronic devices have been shown to have no effect as a mosquito repellent by studies done by the EPA and many universities.

---

---

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/04/18/mosquito-repellent.html
Key points from the article:

"There was no evidence in the field studies to support any repelling effects of EMRs, hence >no evidence to support their promotion or use"
           
-Ahmadali Enayati, researcher

This is a major point as well:

The study also said that in 12 of the 15 experiments, the landing rates of mosquitoes on subjects was in fact higher than in control groups.

The article also points out that female mosquitoes can't hear very well- Which supports the idea that high-frequency repellents are ineffective; Much more than you probably think. Why? Well, it's pretty simple:

Female Mosquitoes are the only Gender that Bite.

---

Overall, when you consider the countless studies and research put in to the effects of high-frequency sounds on mosquitoes, it's pretty obvious that:

High Frequency Sounds do NOT repel mosquitoes

---

eyes - Are there specific conditions that allow humans to see ultraviolet wavelengths

It is fairly common knowledge that the lens in its normal state absorbs ultraviolet (UV) radiation. An interesting notion has come up from time to time in my reading that suggests there are a small number of conditions that result in humans being able to 'see' ultraviolet.

What conditions may cause this? Also, those affected, would they 'see' it has a different shade of violet?

lab techniques - Measuring fitness / lifetime reproductive success (LRS) in Drosophila

I haven't done LRS but I don't see a reason why you couldn't make that measurement over only a few days, if you keep this method consistent through out all your populations. Just as a control you might have to do a complete LRS to see if you get any patterns in their egg laying behaviour, which I assume/believe is a decreasing pattern over time but just check the pattern of your WT and make sure your food is the same throughout all your experiments as changes in yeast % can completely distort your results as fly lay eggs like crazy when given yeast!! so use the same batch of fly food.

Although I'm no expert at this, if you look at female ovaries and do some molecular/phenotypic characterisations, you might get some interesting data if you are already observing a huge difference between your populations although you would have to look at the literature for this but having played around with these stuff a little, you find a surprising amount of data! This is in a way nice since you take the males out of the equation as the reproductive fitness could be compromised by either males or females in a population. To determine this you need to cross the males and females of your population of interest to WT flies and count the embryos (although this is slightly dangerous since if males are not performing well, females can lay lots of unfertilised eggs, blanks, and they are indistinguishable from fertilised egg so maybe count the hatched offspring and immediately discard them although that presents its own set of challenges and variables and to be honest its not likely to happen since you usually get this blanks in virgin females that have not yet courtshiped). If you observe lets say no changes in embryo numbers when your male populations are crossed to WT females but significant changes when females are crossed to the WT males, you would know the problem is with the males in your population.

Hope this helps!

EDIT: So I looked a bit further into this and came across this paper (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024560). If you look at Fig 6, I think it answers your question. I'm basically quoting the paper here. They measured the correlations between adult LRS and cumulative and short-time measures of fecundity and offspring production. Correlations of the short-time measures of fecundity and offspring production with adult LRS were highly dependent on the time of measurement. For young females the correlations were low, but when measured from older females, the correlations were much higher (up to 0.67 for short-time fecundity and 0.83 for short-time offspring production). For both short-time fecundity and short-time offspring production the highest correlations with adult LRS were reached when the female age was about 50 to 80 days. The length of the time frame had only a minor effect: the correlation of the 10-day measure with adult LRS was generally only slightly higher than that of the 2-day measure. The short-time measures performed well in comparison to the cumulative measures of fecundity and offspring production. So in short if you let your females age a bit and measure their fecundity, then it should be representative of their LRS.

botany - Root hair formation in Arabidopsis

In arabidopsis, 2 cell types arise in the root epidermis : root hair cells and hairless epidermal cells.

The immature epidermal cells that are in contact with 2 underlying cells of root cortex differentiate into root hair cells whereas the immature epidermal cells having contact with only one cortical cell do not develop root hair.

What is the advantage of this ?

biochemistry - Raphide toxicity in Pothos plant

Recently I found out that the common houseplant Pothos (Epipremnum aureum) is toxic to cats and dogs due to the presence of "insoluble raphides." I have a lot of these plants around my house and my cat drinks water from the vase that they are in (I put drinking water into the vase that he always drinks from). He doesn't chew the Pothos leaves, he only drinks the water, is it still dangerous? I tried several times to give him water in an ordinary bowl, but he prefers the water that's associated with the Pothos plant, so I thought that maybe the roots of the plant excrete something nutritious (but I guess that's not the case, apparently...).
Is it harmful for an animal (cat) to drink water that has a Pothos plant immersed in it?
Also, my other cat does chew on the Pothos leaves (he goes crazy for them). Is it possible to have immunity and not be affected by the toxic chemicals? I read that chewing is supposed to provoke stomach irritation, but I would think that if the cat that chews the leaves suffered from irritation he wouldn't keep getting excited about chewing the leaves...
So what is going on? Many thanks!

evolution - Why do sloths come down from the trees to defecate?

I'm under the impression that most sloths exhibit this behavior, but why? They are slow moving and so have no way of escaping from predators when on the ground. Not to mention the energy they expire to break from their normally sedentary lifestyle.

They may only have to defecate and urinate once a week, but it strikes me as an unnecessary risk. Why not let gravity do all the hard work?