Forward: The new argument-砷代磷生长细菌的Science文章# Biology - 生物学
e*e
1 楼
我父母上星期二去沈阳大使馆签证，当时顺利pass了。
他们使用的是邮局邮递服务。
我妈的签证第三天就寄到了，但我爸的签证5天过去了还没有消息。
请问有人遇到这种情况吗？应该给大使馆发fax询问吗？
多谢
他们使用的是邮局邮递服务。
我妈的签证第三天就寄到了，但我爸的签证5天过去了还没有消息。
请问有人遇到这种情况吗？应该给大使馆发fax询问吗？
多谢
w*a
2 楼
以前听说白鹿原作者说只有吴天明可以拍，怎么变成王全安了。他的电影好像豆都没人
提。而且貌似是个体制内的。
提。而且貌似是个体制内的。
w*s
3 楼
天生的花腔歌手常思思的歌曲大多对我来说都是不可及的～～～今宵如此美丽算是一首
我可以尝试的，可找不到原调的伴奏，只好自己做了一个，消声效果不好～～～～
这是常思思的炫境 天天把歌唱现场版，美的一塌糊涂：
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki2mDZuObwM
我可以尝试的，可找不到原调的伴奏，只好自己做了一个，消声效果不好～～～～
这是常思思的炫境 天天把歌唱现场版，美的一塌糊涂：
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki2mDZuObwM
j*9
4 楼
http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2010/12/guest_post_arsenate-based_dna.php
In the wake of the NASA excitement over the new arsenic study, and my
promise to give a detailed review of the paper itself, I have recruited a
colleague with strong opinons about the work, a solid chemistry and
microbiology background, and "Dr." in front of his name to share his
analysis. I will be posting have posted my personal and less-technical take
on the whole thing soon, so stay tuned as well.
Dr. Alex Bradley uses modern geochemistry and microbiology tools to study
the evolution of life and Earth. He has the following to say about the paper.
There's been a lot of hype around the news of GFAJ-1, the microbe claimed to
substitute arsenate for phosphate in its DNA. In the midst of all the
excitement, one thing has been overlooked:
The claim is almost certainly wrong.
The study published in Science has a number of flaws. In particular, one
subtle but critical piece of evidence has been overlooked, and it
demonstrates that the DNA in question actually has a phosphate - not an
arsenate -backbone.
To understand why, we need to back up a bit. One thing that everyone agrees
on is that all things being equal, DNA with an arsenate backbone will
hydrolyze quickly in water, while DNA with a phosphate backbone will not.
Steve Benner has pointed out that the half-life of the hydrolysis reaction
is about 10 minutes.
Wolfe-Simon et al. recognize this, but claim that the bacterium GFAJ-1 must
have some unknown biological mechanism to compensate, and this prevents the
DNA from falling apart in the cells. Let's assume for now that they are
correct. It might be plausible - biology has all kinds of strange tricks and
this idea can't be quickly dismissed, even if it seems radical.
But chemistry is much more predictable. Once DNA is out of the cell, pure
chemical processes take over, and experiments have demonstrated that
hydrolysis of arsenate links is fast. So you could do a simple experiment to
test whether DNA had a phosphate or arsenate backbone: just remove DNA from
the cell and put it in water for a few minutes. Then examine whether it
hydrolyzes or not.
In an accidental way, Wolfe-Simon et al. performed precisely this experiment
. The result indicates that the DNA of GFAJ-1 has a phosphate backbone.
The details are these: to isolate DNA, Wolfe-Simon et al. performed a phenol
-chloroform extraction. In this technique, after cellular disruption, DNA
and other cellular material were dissolved in water, and then the non-DNA
material (such as lipids and proteins) were cleaned out of the mixture using
phenol and chloroform. This is a pretty common laboratory procedure, and
typically would take an hour or two. But here is the key point:
During this whole procedure, the DNA was in water.
Remember, proteins were removed from this mixture. Any cellular machinery
that stabilized arsenate-DNA was removed. In the absence of biochemistry,
pure chemistry takes over: any arsenate-DNA would have been quickly
hydrolyzed in the water, breaking down into fragments of small size.
Alternatively, phosphate-DNA would not hydrolyze quickly, and large-sized
fragments might be recoverable.
So what size are the fragments of DNA extracted from GFAJ-1? They are large.
Figure 1 shows a single strong band. This pattern is a bit unusual for a
genomic DNA extract, but the important thing is that the fragments in this
band have around 10,000 nucleotides between breaks in the DNA. These long
chains of nucleotides did not hydrolyze in water. Yet it is precisely this
DNA band that is claimed to have an arsenate backbone.
How can this be?
The answer is: it can't be. If this DNA did not hydrolyze in water during
the long extraction process, then it doesn't have an arsenate backbone. It
has a phosphate backbone. It is normal DNA.
So what accounts for the claim of arsenic in this DNA? Wolfe-Simon et al.
used a technique called nanoSIMS to analyze elemental concentrations of the
agarose gel at the location of the DNA band. They determined that the part
of the gel containing DNA also contained both arsenic and phosphorus. But
what did they really analyze?
The answer is that the nanoSIMS determined the concentration of arsenic in
the gel - not specifically in the DNA. Arsenic was present in the gel at the
location of the DNA band. But these data do not require that arsenic is
part of the DNA, only that it is somehow associated with the DNA. So here is
a more plausible explanation: arsenate sticks to stuff. When you grow
bacteria in media containing lots of arsenate, cellular material gets
covered in arsenate. If you analyze this material chemically, you see a high
arsenic background. The arsenic background will remain even after you
separate the cellular material into its constituent parts - DNA, lipids, and
proteins - because the chemical separation is imperfect. You could imagine
a parallel experiment: if you grew bacteria in seawater, a band of DNA
extracted from these bacteria might show a high background of sodium and
chloride. This would not be very surprising - and it certainly wouldn't
imply that the DNA had a chloride backbone.
Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues might quibble with this, and claim that
arsenate is not that 'sticky'. This should have been resolved by running a
negative control. Grow some bacteria with phosphate-backboned DNA in media
containing high concentrations of arsenate. Then extract the DNA, run a gel,
and just demonstrate that the gel does not have a high arsenic
concentration associated with the DNA band. That would be evidence that my
explanation is wrong. But this simple control was not performed in study
published in Science.
One objection to my claim might be: if the GFAJ-1 DNA contains phosphate,
where did the phosphate come from? The researchers claim that there wasn't
much phosphate in their growth media. In fact, they did a very good job of
quantifying the background phosphate concentration: it was about 3
micromolar, which was certainly much lower than the arsenate concentrations
(by a factor of about 10,000).
But here's the relevant question: Is 3 micromolar phosphate a lot? Or a
little? One point of comparison is the Sargasso Sea, where plenty of
microbes survive and make normal DNA. Here, the phosphate concentrations are
less than 10 nanomolar - or 300 times less phosphate than the "phosphate-
free" media in the GFAJ-1 experiment. At such low phosphate concentrations,
some bacteria compensate by removing phosphorus from their lipids - but not
from their DNA.
So the Sargasso Sea tells us that some bacteria are capable of making DNA at
very low phosphate concentrations. The most plausible explanation is that
the bacterium GFAJ-1 can make normal DNA at micromolar phosphate
concentrations, and that it also has the ability to tolerate very high
arsenate concentrations.
There are numerous other aspects of this study that don't make sense. Why
would bacteria from Mono Lake need the ability to substitute arsenate for
phosphate in their DNA? Yes, arsenic concentrations are high in Mono Lake.
But so are phosphate concentrations, which approach 1 millimolar - or 100,
000 times higher than in the Sargasso Sea. Mono Lake has more phosphate
available than nearly any other environment on Earth. There is no selective
pressure for the evolution of what would surely be a massively complex
switch in nucleic acid chemistry from phosphate to arsenate. I can only
begin to imagine the structural problems that would be imposed on DNA by
this switch, which would change bond lengths between nucleotides, and cause
secondary problems with transcription, etc. Then there is the radical
suggestion that nucleotide chemistry is stable because might occur in a 'non
-aqueous' environment. It's not clear how that could work.
Finally, there's a simple experiment that could resolve this debate: analyze
the nucleotides directly. Show a mass spectrum of DNA sequences
demonstrating that nucleotides contain arsenate instead of phosphate. This
is a very simple experiment, and would be quite convincing - but it has not
been performed.
This study lacks any real evidence for arsenate-based DNA; unfortunately
these exciting claims are very very shaky.
Wolfe-Simon F, Blum JS, Kulp TR, Gordon GW, Hoeft SE, Pett-Ridge J, Stolz JF
, Webb SM, Weber PK, Davies PC, Anbar AD, & Oremland RS (2010). A Bacterium
That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus. Science (New York, N.Y
.) PMID: 21127214
In the wake of the NASA excitement over the new arsenic study, and my
promise to give a detailed review of the paper itself, I have recruited a
colleague with strong opinons about the work, a solid chemistry and
microbiology background, and "Dr." in front of his name to share his
analysis. I will be posting have posted my personal and less-technical take
on the whole thing soon, so stay tuned as well.
Dr. Alex Bradley uses modern geochemistry and microbiology tools to study
the evolution of life and Earth. He has the following to say about the paper.
There's been a lot of hype around the news of GFAJ-1, the microbe claimed to
substitute arsenate for phosphate in its DNA. In the midst of all the
excitement, one thing has been overlooked:
The claim is almost certainly wrong.
The study published in Science has a number of flaws. In particular, one
subtle but critical piece of evidence has been overlooked, and it
demonstrates that the DNA in question actually has a phosphate - not an
arsenate -backbone.
To understand why, we need to back up a bit. One thing that everyone agrees
on is that all things being equal, DNA with an arsenate backbone will
hydrolyze quickly in water, while DNA with a phosphate backbone will not.
Steve Benner has pointed out that the half-life of the hydrolysis reaction
is about 10 minutes.
Wolfe-Simon et al. recognize this, but claim that the bacterium GFAJ-1 must
have some unknown biological mechanism to compensate, and this prevents the
DNA from falling apart in the cells. Let's assume for now that they are
correct. It might be plausible - biology has all kinds of strange tricks and
this idea can't be quickly dismissed, even if it seems radical.
But chemistry is much more predictable. Once DNA is out of the cell, pure
chemical processes take over, and experiments have demonstrated that
hydrolysis of arsenate links is fast. So you could do a simple experiment to
test whether DNA had a phosphate or arsenate backbone: just remove DNA from
the cell and put it in water for a few minutes. Then examine whether it
hydrolyzes or not.
In an accidental way, Wolfe-Simon et al. performed precisely this experiment
. The result indicates that the DNA of GFAJ-1 has a phosphate backbone.
The details are these: to isolate DNA, Wolfe-Simon et al. performed a phenol
-chloroform extraction. In this technique, after cellular disruption, DNA
and other cellular material were dissolved in water, and then the non-DNA
material (such as lipids and proteins) were cleaned out of the mixture using
phenol and chloroform. This is a pretty common laboratory procedure, and
typically would take an hour or two. But here is the key point:
During this whole procedure, the DNA was in water.
Remember, proteins were removed from this mixture. Any cellular machinery
that stabilized arsenate-DNA was removed. In the absence of biochemistry,
pure chemistry takes over: any arsenate-DNA would have been quickly
hydrolyzed in the water, breaking down into fragments of small size.
Alternatively, phosphate-DNA would not hydrolyze quickly, and large-sized
fragments might be recoverable.
So what size are the fragments of DNA extracted from GFAJ-1? They are large.
Figure 1 shows a single strong band. This pattern is a bit unusual for a
genomic DNA extract, but the important thing is that the fragments in this
band have around 10,000 nucleotides between breaks in the DNA. These long
chains of nucleotides did not hydrolyze in water. Yet it is precisely this
DNA band that is claimed to have an arsenate backbone.
How can this be?
The answer is: it can't be. If this DNA did not hydrolyze in water during
the long extraction process, then it doesn't have an arsenate backbone. It
has a phosphate backbone. It is normal DNA.
So what accounts for the claim of arsenic in this DNA? Wolfe-Simon et al.
used a technique called nanoSIMS to analyze elemental concentrations of the
agarose gel at the location of the DNA band. They determined that the part
of the gel containing DNA also contained both arsenic and phosphorus. But
what did they really analyze?
The answer is that the nanoSIMS determined the concentration of arsenic in
the gel - not specifically in the DNA. Arsenic was present in the gel at the
location of the DNA band. But these data do not require that arsenic is
part of the DNA, only that it is somehow associated with the DNA. So here is
a more plausible explanation: arsenate sticks to stuff. When you grow
bacteria in media containing lots of arsenate, cellular material gets
covered in arsenate. If you analyze this material chemically, you see a high
arsenic background. The arsenic background will remain even after you
separate the cellular material into its constituent parts - DNA, lipids, and
proteins - because the chemical separation is imperfect. You could imagine
a parallel experiment: if you grew bacteria in seawater, a band of DNA
extracted from these bacteria might show a high background of sodium and
chloride. This would not be very surprising - and it certainly wouldn't
imply that the DNA had a chloride backbone.
Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues might quibble with this, and claim that
arsenate is not that 'sticky'. This should have been resolved by running a
negative control. Grow some bacteria with phosphate-backboned DNA in media
containing high concentrations of arsenate. Then extract the DNA, run a gel,
and just demonstrate that the gel does not have a high arsenic
concentration associated with the DNA band. That would be evidence that my
explanation is wrong. But this simple control was not performed in study
published in Science.
One objection to my claim might be: if the GFAJ-1 DNA contains phosphate,
where did the phosphate come from? The researchers claim that there wasn't
much phosphate in their growth media. In fact, they did a very good job of
quantifying the background phosphate concentration: it was about 3
micromolar, which was certainly much lower than the arsenate concentrations
(by a factor of about 10,000).
But here's the relevant question: Is 3 micromolar phosphate a lot? Or a
little? One point of comparison is the Sargasso Sea, where plenty of
microbes survive and make normal DNA. Here, the phosphate concentrations are
less than 10 nanomolar - or 300 times less phosphate than the "phosphate-
free" media in the GFAJ-1 experiment. At such low phosphate concentrations,
some bacteria compensate by removing phosphorus from their lipids - but not
from their DNA.
So the Sargasso Sea tells us that some bacteria are capable of making DNA at
very low phosphate concentrations. The most plausible explanation is that
the bacterium GFAJ-1 can make normal DNA at micromolar phosphate
concentrations, and that it also has the ability to tolerate very high
arsenate concentrations.
There are numerous other aspects of this study that don't make sense. Why
would bacteria from Mono Lake need the ability to substitute arsenate for
phosphate in their DNA? Yes, arsenic concentrations are high in Mono Lake.
But so are phosphate concentrations, which approach 1 millimolar - or 100,
000 times higher than in the Sargasso Sea. Mono Lake has more phosphate
available than nearly any other environment on Earth. There is no selective
pressure for the evolution of what would surely be a massively complex
switch in nucleic acid chemistry from phosphate to arsenate. I can only
begin to imagine the structural problems that would be imposed on DNA by
this switch, which would change bond lengths between nucleotides, and cause
secondary problems with transcription, etc. Then there is the radical
suggestion that nucleotide chemistry is stable because might occur in a 'non
-aqueous' environment. It's not clear how that could work.
Finally, there's a simple experiment that could resolve this debate: analyze
the nucleotides directly. Show a mass spectrum of DNA sequences
demonstrating that nucleotides contain arsenate instead of phosphate. This
is a very simple experiment, and would be quite convincing - but it has not
been performed.
This study lacks any real evidence for arsenate-based DNA; unfortunately
these exciting claims are very very shaky.
Wolfe-Simon F, Blum JS, Kulp TR, Gordon GW, Hoeft SE, Pett-Ridge J, Stolz JF
, Webb SM, Weber PK, Davies PC, Anbar AD, & Oremland RS (2010). A Bacterium
That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus. Science (New York, N.Y
.) PMID: 21127214
i*i
5 楼
不用，这样的情况经常发生--父母不同时间收到的原因很多，邮寄传递是两个包裹文件
。
。
r*e
6 楼
图雅的婚事不错的,推荐....
好像2007年第57届柏林国际电影节金熊奖
【在 w**a 的大作中提到】
: 以前听说白鹿原作者说只有吴天明可以拍，怎么变成王全安了。他的电影好像豆都没人
: 提。而且貌似是个体制内的。
好像2007年第57届柏林国际电影节金熊奖
【在 w**a 的大作中提到】
: 以前听说白鹿原作者说只有吴天明可以拍，怎么变成王全安了。他的电影好像豆都没人
: 提。而且貌似是个体制内的。
a*u
7 楼
确实是花腔！
唱得很赞！
白求恩你具备出精品的所有东西，
伴奏这个不给力不怪你！
【在 w***s 的大作中提到】
: 天生的花腔歌手常思思的歌曲大多对我来说都是不可及的～～～今宵如此美丽算是一首
: 我可以尝试的，可找不到原调的伴奏，只好自己做了一个，消声效果不好～～～～
: 这是常思思的炫境 天天把歌唱现场版，美的一塌糊涂：
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki2mDZuObwM
唱得很赞！
白求恩你具备出精品的所有东西，
伴奏这个不给力不怪你！
【在 w***s 的大作中提到】
: 天生的花腔歌手常思思的歌曲大多对我来说都是不可及的～～～今宵如此美丽算是一首
: 我可以尝试的，可找不到原调的伴奏，只好自己做了一个，消声效果不好～～～～
: 这是常思思的炫境 天天把歌唱现场版，美的一塌糊涂：
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki2mDZuObwM
s*n
8 楼
Very good comments.
q*g
9 楼
办理邮寄的时候不是一起办的？如果是一起办的，用一个package省点钱，也应该是一
起到的。
如果在邮局办理两份，那就有可能不同时间到。
一起签证，正常情况下应该是同一时间邮寄出来的。
fax问问也无妨。不影响签证结果。
起到的。
如果在邮局办理两份，那就有可能不同时间到。
一起签证，正常情况下应该是同一时间邮寄出来的。
fax问问也无妨。不影响签证结果。
b*n
10 楼
我看过，故事简单，一个普通的好女人的生活中的困难和选择，除了女主角，其他人都
像业余演员。但是看完了不觉得白浪费时间。
王全安是我看到的最有希望的导演了。期待今年的《白鹿原》。
像业余演员。但是看完了不觉得白浪费时间。
王全安是我看到的最有希望的导演了。期待今年的《白鹿原》。
b*a
11 楼
白求恩厉害
求科普啥是花腔？是指音色，音域还是唱腔？
【在 a*******u 的大作中提到】
: 确实是花腔！
: 唱得很赞！
: 白求恩你具备出精品的所有东西，
: 伴奏这个不给力不怪你！
求科普啥是花腔？是指音色，音域还是唱腔？
【在 a*******u 的大作中提到】
: 确实是花腔！
: 唱得很赞！
: 白求恩你具备出精品的所有东西，
: 伴奏这个不给力不怪你！
s*a
12 楼
去查查ems编号。看看到哪了
l*y
13 楼
指的应该是唱腔，俺的初步理解是，只要像鸟叫的就是～～
【在 b*******a 的大作中提到】
: 白求恩厉害
: 求科普啥是花腔？是指音色，音域还是唱腔？
【在 b*******a 的大作中提到】
: 白求恩厉害
: 求科普啥是花腔？是指音色，音域还是唱腔？
t*s
14 楼
非常正常，经常遇到
f*a
15 楼
花腔太难了，除了嗓子，气息不行的俺永远不敢唱
8过这个歌里面，我木有听到花腔啊？？
8过这个歌里面，我木有听到花腔啊？？
a*u
16 楼
赞直观！
以下都是来自wiki或者百度。
花腔（意大利语：Coloratura）是一种华丽的演唱技巧，主要应用于西洋古典音乐中，
以装饰音多而难度大而著名。
花腔女高音（意大利语：Coloratura Soprano）是在西洋古典音乐中，有花腔技巧的女
高音，就是说主要在高音区的炫技演唱。花腔女高音要求一如戏剧女高音，需有优秀的
高音区演唱技巧，换气技巧，气量和耐力。
在音乐，男高音（tenor）是一名音域占C－c2共15度的歌唱家。他们按音质、音色、音
区等不同特点分为：抒情花腔男高音（lirico-Leggero tenor）、抒情男高音（lyric
tenor）和戏剧男高音（dramatic tenor）。
花腔男高音是一种演唱风格华丽、轻巧型的男高音，其音域与花腔女高音近似。声音清
润、明亮，擅于演唱轻巧灵活、富于装饰性的旋律。花腔演唱，又可以义地理解为具有
更高技巧的花唱。是一种超凡的高音技巧，像罗西尼歌剧《塞维利亚理发师》中的阿尔
马维瓦伯爵。
【在 l****y 的大作中提到】
: 指的应该是唱腔，俺的初步理解是，只要像鸟叫的就是～～
以下都是来自wiki或者百度。
花腔（意大利语：Coloratura）是一种华丽的演唱技巧，主要应用于西洋古典音乐中，
以装饰音多而难度大而著名。
花腔女高音（意大利语：Coloratura Soprano）是在西洋古典音乐中，有花腔技巧的女
高音，就是说主要在高音区的炫技演唱。花腔女高音要求一如戏剧女高音，需有优秀的
高音区演唱技巧，换气技巧，气量和耐力。
在音乐，男高音（tenor）是一名音域占C－c2共15度的歌唱家。他们按音质、音色、音
区等不同特点分为：抒情花腔男高音（lirico-Leggero tenor）、抒情男高音（lyric
tenor）和戏剧男高音（dramatic tenor）。
花腔男高音是一种演唱风格华丽、轻巧型的男高音，其音域与花腔女高音近似。声音清
润、明亮，擅于演唱轻巧灵活、富于装饰性的旋律。花腔演唱，又可以义地理解为具有
更高技巧的花唱。是一种超凡的高音技巧，像罗西尼歌剧《塞维利亚理发师》中的阿尔
马维瓦伯爵。
【在 l****y 的大作中提到】
: 指的应该是唱腔，俺的初步理解是，只要像鸟叫的就是～～
f*a
17 楼
花腔女中音就不象鸟叫。。。。。。
【在 l****y 的大作中提到】
: 指的应该是唱腔，俺的初步理解是，只要像鸟叫的就是～～
【在 l****y 的大作中提到】
: 指的应该是唱腔，俺的初步理解是，只要像鸟叫的就是～～
b*a
18 楼
哈哈，好玩
【在 l****y 的大作中提到】
: 指的应该是唱腔，俺的初步理解是，只要像鸟叫的就是～～
【在 l****y 的大作中提到】
: 指的应该是唱腔，俺的初步理解是，只要像鸟叫的就是～～
b*a
19 楼
哦，大致明白了，谢谢味精~
lyric
【在 a*******u 的大作中提到】
: 赞直观！
: 以下都是来自wiki或者百度。
: 花腔（意大利语：Coloratura）是一种华丽的演唱技巧，主要应用于西洋古典音乐中，
: 以装饰音多而难度大而著名。
: 花腔女高音（意大利语：Coloratura Soprano）是在西洋古典音乐中，有花腔技巧的女
: 高音，就是说主要在高音区的炫技演唱。花腔女高音要求一如戏剧女高音，需有优秀的
: 高音区演唱技巧，换气技巧，气量和耐力。
: 在音乐，男高音（tenor）是一名音域占C－c2共15度的歌唱家。他们按音质、音色、音
: 区等不同特点分为：抒情花腔男高音（lirico-Leggero tenor）、抒情男高音（lyric
: tenor）和戏剧男高音（dramatic tenor）。
lyric
【在 a*******u 的大作中提到】
: 赞直观！
: 以下都是来自wiki或者百度。
: 花腔（意大利语：Coloratura）是一种华丽的演唱技巧，主要应用于西洋古典音乐中，
: 以装饰音多而难度大而著名。
: 花腔女高音（意大利语：Coloratura Soprano）是在西洋古典音乐中，有花腔技巧的女
: 高音，就是说主要在高音区的炫技演唱。花腔女高音要求一如戏剧女高音，需有优秀的
: 高音区演唱技巧，换气技巧，气量和耐力。
: 在音乐，男高音（tenor）是一名音域占C－c2共15度的歌唱家。他们按音质、音色、音
: 区等不同特点分为：抒情花腔男高音（lirico-Leggero tenor）、抒情男高音（lyric
: tenor）和戏剧男高音（dramatic tenor）。
i*i
20 楼
。。。。
那为虾米不叫鸟腔？
//run
【在 l****y 的大作中提到】
: 指的应该是唱腔，俺的初步理解是，只要像鸟叫的就是～～
那为虾米不叫鸟腔？
//run
【在 l****y 的大作中提到】
: 指的应该是唱腔，俺的初步理解是，只要像鸟叫的就是～～
l*y
21 楼
白求恩爷爷这歌里我也没听出来，他下面的youtube链接常思思的很明显
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 花腔太难了，除了嗓子，气息不行的俺永远不敢唱
: 8过这个歌里面，我木有听到花腔啊？？
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 花腔太难了，除了嗓子，气息不行的俺永远不敢唱
: 8过这个歌里面，我木有听到花腔啊？？
l*y
22 楼
赞！
lyric
【在 a*******u 的大作中提到】
: 赞直观！
: 以下都是来自wiki或者百度。
: 花腔（意大利语：Coloratura）是一种华丽的演唱技巧，主要应用于西洋古典音乐中，
: 以装饰音多而难度大而著名。
: 花腔女高音（意大利语：Coloratura Soprano）是在西洋古典音乐中，有花腔技巧的女
: 高音，就是说主要在高音区的炫技演唱。花腔女高音要求一如戏剧女高音，需有优秀的
: 高音区演唱技巧，换气技巧，气量和耐力。
: 在音乐，男高音（tenor）是一名音域占C－c2共15度的歌唱家。他们按音质、音色、音
: 区等不同特点分为：抒情花腔男高音（lirico-Leggero tenor）、抒情男高音（lyric
: tenor）和戏剧男高音（dramatic tenor）。
lyric
【在 a*******u 的大作中提到】
: 赞直观！
: 以下都是来自wiki或者百度。
: 花腔（意大利语：Coloratura）是一种华丽的演唱技巧，主要应用于西洋古典音乐中，
: 以装饰音多而难度大而著名。
: 花腔女高音（意大利语：Coloratura Soprano）是在西洋古典音乐中，有花腔技巧的女
: 高音，就是说主要在高音区的炫技演唱。花腔女高音要求一如戏剧女高音，需有优秀的
: 高音区演唱技巧，换气技巧，气量和耐力。
: 在音乐，男高音（tenor）是一名音域占C－c2共15度的歌唱家。他们按音质、音色、音
: 区等不同特点分为：抒情花腔男高音（lirico-Leggero tenor）、抒情男高音（lyric
: tenor）和戏剧男高音（dramatic tenor）。
l*y
23 楼
是啊，花是静止的，鸟是活蹦乱跳的，叫鸟腔更形象些
【在 i****i 的大作中提到】
: 。。。。
: 那为虾米不叫鸟腔？
: //run
【在 i****i 的大作中提到】
: 。。。。
: 那为虾米不叫鸟腔？
: //run
i*i
24 楼
谢味精！花腔男中音的也好听，视频嵌不进来，贴个链接好了：
http://www.56.com/u11/v_NDkzNjY2ODA.html
才发现温可铮长得有些像李德伦。。。
【在 a*******u 的大作中提到】
: 赞直观！
: 以下都是来自wiki或者百度。
: 花腔（意大利语：Coloratura）是一种华丽的演唱技巧，主要应用于西洋古典音乐中，
: 以装饰音多而难度大而著名。
: 花腔女高音（意大利语：Coloratura Soprano）是在西洋古典音乐中，有花腔技巧的女
: 高音，就是说主要在高音区的炫技演唱。花腔女高音要求一如戏剧女高音，需有优秀的
: 高音区演唱技巧，换气技巧，气量和耐力。
: 在音乐，男高音（tenor）是一名音域占C－c2共15度的歌唱家。他们按音质、音色、音
: 区等不同特点分为：抒情花腔男高音（lirico-Leggero tenor）、抒情男高音（lyric
: tenor）和戏剧男高音（dramatic tenor）。
http://www.56.com/u11/v_NDkzNjY2ODA.html
才发现温可铮长得有些像李德伦。。。
【在 a*******u 的大作中提到】
: 赞直观！
: 以下都是来自wiki或者百度。
: 花腔（意大利语：Coloratura）是一种华丽的演唱技巧，主要应用于西洋古典音乐中，
: 以装饰音多而难度大而著名。
: 花腔女高音（意大利语：Coloratura Soprano）是在西洋古典音乐中，有花腔技巧的女
: 高音，就是说主要在高音区的炫技演唱。花腔女高音要求一如戏剧女高音，需有优秀的
: 高音区演唱技巧，换气技巧，气量和耐力。
: 在音乐，男高音（tenor）是一名音域占C－c2共15度的歌唱家。他们按音质、音色、音
: 区等不同特点分为：抒情花腔男高音（lirico-Leggero tenor）、抒情男高音（lyric
: tenor）和戏剧男高音（dramatic tenor）。
H*r
25 楼
白求恩太牛了！
我忍不住把你这个花枪的链接也再帖一遍，太好听了
【在 w***s 的大作中提到】
: 天生的花腔歌手常思思的歌曲大多对我来说都是不可及的～～～今宵如此美丽算是一首
: 我可以尝试的，可找不到原调的伴奏，只好自己做了一个，消声效果不好～～～～
: 这是常思思的炫境 天天把歌唱现场版，美的一塌糊涂：
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki2mDZuObwM
我忍不住把你这个花枪的链接也再帖一遍，太好听了
【在 w***s 的大作中提到】
: 天生的花腔歌手常思思的歌曲大多对我来说都是不可及的～～～今宵如此美丽算是一首
: 我可以尝试的，可找不到原调的伴奏，只好自己做了一个，消声效果不好～～～～
: 这是常思思的炫境 天天把歌唱现场版，美的一塌糊涂：
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki2mDZuObwM
x*y
26 楼
dada你去跟lz pk
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 花腔太难了，除了嗓子，气息不行的俺永远不敢唱
: 8过这个歌里面，我木有听到花腔啊？？
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 花腔太难了，除了嗓子，气息不行的俺永远不敢唱
: 8过这个歌里面，我木有听到花腔啊？？
O*e
27 楼
好专业。。佩服
T*a
28 楼
赞白求恩爷爷（总算有比我更老的了）！
的确没有听到花枪，甚至不像同一首歌，不过唱出了自己的特色，蛮好听的。。。
的确没有听到花枪，甚至不像同一首歌，不过唱出了自己的特色，蛮好听的。。。
b*p
29 楼
lz好专业啊，多谢贴这个link，真的好美好美，人美音美～
n*a
30 楼
lz的底子不错，好唱
ps，常思思那个造型很适合演周芷若诶
ps，常思思那个造型很适合演周芷若诶
相关阅读
elife journal这回不是海归段院士而是医学博士生捐精而病故[紧急救助]：提供英文生物文章写作的服务？关于生物学研究中的假说问题磷酸化后的底物与激酶的亲和力比较终于不用纠结了毕业发文章的要求请教一个关于IRES的问题，急survey: how many are watching Europe CupA retraction from Nature在中国申请美国的经费？什么protein assay可以区分protein和peptide？hypothesis driven 与data driven 的区别原文 引用？刚开始做慢病毒，嘴唇就长孢疹了……心慌慌ing ……urgent paper help!mini-southernRe: 近期回国的人很多啊,提点建议欢迎中国学者出席中国科大六月访美招待会any one read this paper " wilde spread adoption of Bt cotton