f*n
2 楼
chase underwriting guideline似乎松了一些。
老夫申了CO, 被废。 之后打1-888-245-0625， 问了几句，批了。 15k.
老夫申了CO, 被废。 之后打1-888-245-0625， 问了几句，批了。 15k.
c*o
3 楼
一个有歌声相伴的人生是美好的。一个有歌声相伴的做爱是浪漫的。可是总浪漫也让人
受不了啊。
我不久前结婚了，老公是我大学同学，性格儒雅，长相英俊，对我非常好。本
来我们的生活应该是平安而幸福的，但是这一切在六个月前发生了彻底的改变。
去年的夏天的一天晚上，我还记得天气非常热，我就把空调打开。老公躺在床
上等我，白天我们约定好晚上要做“那件事儿”。我羞答答地上了床，老公就一如既往
地压住我，急不可耐地进行爱抚，然后我们像往常一样开始了。
起初我非常舒服，一直配合他。哪知道过了十分钟左右，他突然大声唱起了歌
：“生来皆凡人，为何两重天，……”是周华健的“贵人歌”！
我吓了一大跳，问他：“你干什么？”
他不理我，一边动一边继续唱那首歌，唱完了还又重复一遍，一直到最后一句
唱完，他正好射了。
等他平静下来，我问他：“你是什么意思？”
他说：“这样很好，我感到比平时有激情！”
我说：“我不喜欢！你以后不要这样，而且让邻居听见了多不好！”
他显得很不高兴，但还是答应了。
第二天晚上他又提出要求，我答应他了。没想到在过程中，他又唱起来了，换
了一首歌：“条条大路通罗马啊，最近的那条最成功；出人头地我雄
受不了啊。
我不久前结婚了，老公是我大学同学，性格儒雅，长相英俊，对我非常好。本
来我们的生活应该是平安而幸福的，但是这一切在六个月前发生了彻底的改变。
去年的夏天的一天晚上，我还记得天气非常热，我就把空调打开。老公躺在床
上等我，白天我们约定好晚上要做“那件事儿”。我羞答答地上了床，老公就一如既往
地压住我，急不可耐地进行爱抚，然后我们像往常一样开始了。
起初我非常舒服，一直配合他。哪知道过了十分钟左右，他突然大声唱起了歌
：“生来皆凡人，为何两重天，……”是周华健的“贵人歌”！
我吓了一大跳，问他：“你干什么？”
他不理我，一边动一边继续唱那首歌，唱完了还又重复一遍，一直到最后一句
唱完，他正好射了。
等他平静下来，我问他：“你是什么意思？”
他说：“这样很好，我感到比平时有激情！”
我说：“我不喜欢！你以后不要这样，而且让邻居听见了多不好！”
他显得很不高兴，但还是答应了。
第二天晚上他又提出要求，我答应他了。没想到在过程中，他又唱起来了，换
了一首歌：“条条大路通罗马啊，最近的那条最成功；出人头地我雄
l*t
4 楼
可惜魅力差好多，主要有两个原因
1, 吐词不清
2, 长了一张苦瓜脸
3, 显老
1, 吐词不清
2, 长了一张苦瓜脸
3, 显老
l*d
5 楼
any comments?
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110519/full/news.2011.304.html#
All science students learn the 'central dogma' of molecular biology: that
the sequence of bases encoded in DNA determines the sequence of amino acids
that makes up the corresponding proteins. But now researchers suggest that
human cells may complicate this tidy picture by making many proteins that do
not match their underlying DNA sequences.
In work published today in Science1, Vivian Cheung at the University of
Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and her team report that they have found more
than 10,000 places where the base (A, C, G or U) in a cell's RNA messages is
not the one expected from the DNA sequences used to make the RNA read-out.
When some of these 'mismatched' RNAs were subsequently translated into
proteins, the latter reflected the 'incorrect' RNA sequences rather than
that of the underlying DNA.
It was already known that some cells 'edit' RNA after it has been produced
to give a new coding sequence, but the new work suggests that such editing
occurs much more often in human cells than anyone had realized, and that
hitherto unknown editing mechanisms must be involved to produce some of the
changes observed. If the finding is confirmed by other investigators — and
some scientists already say they see the same phenomenon in their own data
— it could change biologists' understanding of the cell and alter the way
researchers study genetic contribution to disease.
Editing the central dogma
"The central dogma says that there is faithful transcription of DNA into RNA
. This challenges that idea on a much larger scale than was known," says
Chris Gunter, director of research affairs at the HudsonAlpha Institute for
Biotechnology in Huntsville, Alabama.
The work suggests that RNA editing is providing a previously unappreciated
source of human genetic diversity that could affect, for instance, how
vulnerable different people are to disease.
Cheung does not know whether there are heritable changes, passed down from
parent to child, that affect how much RNA editing occurs in different people
. But scientists already know of a handful of RNA editing proteins that play
a role in human health, such as the APOBEC enzymes, some of which have
antiviral activity. Researchers investigating the connection between
genetics and disease have been stymied by their inability to find strong
connections between genetic variation and risk for most common diseases,
leading researchers to wonder where the 'missing heritability' is hiding.
The new study at least provides one place to look.
"These events could explain some of the 'missing heritability' because they
are not present in everyone and therefore introduce a source of genetic
variation which was previously unaccounted for," says Gunter.
Living with error
But because they do not know what mechanism might be responsible, most
scientists contacted by Nature remained cautious about the significance of
the finding and its possible impact on biology. Some say it is possible that
technical errors could have caused the results. For instance, high-
throughput sequencing machines can make systematic errors in DNA and RNA
sequencing experiments.
And even if the findings hold up, it is still too early to know whether '
mismatching' plays an important role in human biology or not.
"The devil is in the details — to determine if the results are caused by
some unintended technical or computational flaw or are correctly describing
a biological phenomenon," says Thomas Gingeras at the Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory in New York. "Assuming the latter, I would be encouraged to look
at our own large data sets to see if we see similar phenomenona."
Other researchers, such as Manolis Dermitzakis at the University of Geneva
in Switzerland, say they are seeing the phenomenon in their data. Indeed,
Cheung's team drew in part on data generated by the 1000 Genomes project, of
which Dermitzakis is a member. However, Dermitzakis says it is still
unclear how important the phenomenon is for disease susceptibility.
Cheung's group attempts to address many of these concerns, some of which
were raised when the preliminary work was presented last November (see 'DNA
sequence may be lost in translation') at the annual meeting of the American
Society for Human Genetics, in Washington DC. Since then, the team has been
looking for possible errors that could have caused the results.
For example, the researchers first observed DNA–RNA 'mismatches' in data
generated by next-generation sequencing technologies in the International
HapMap Project and the 1000 Genomes project. They have now confirmed some of
the putative DNA-to-RNA changes using traditional Sanger sequencing, and
have found the same changes in different people, across different cell types
, and reflected in proteins.
Cheung says that at first "we truly did not believe it". But after
performing the additional experiments "we cannot explain this by any obvious
technical errors, so we are pretty convinced that this is real," she says.
Researchers who study RNA editing, which up to now was known mostly from
plants and some unicellular human parasites, are intrigued by the new
finding.
Kazuko Nishikura of the Wistar institute in Philadelphia says she was
sceptical at first, because some of the base changes could not be explained
by previously identified mechanisms. But she was convinced once she saw
Cheung's data.
"It's really exciting, because this study reports a different variety of RNA
editing that is much more widespread than existing mechanisms," Nishikura
says.
References
1. Li, M. et al. Science doi:10.1126/science.1207018 (2011).
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110519/full/news.2011.304.html#
All science students learn the 'central dogma' of molecular biology: that
the sequence of bases encoded in DNA determines the sequence of amino acids
that makes up the corresponding proteins. But now researchers suggest that
human cells may complicate this tidy picture by making many proteins that do
not match their underlying DNA sequences.
In work published today in Science1, Vivian Cheung at the University of
Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and her team report that they have found more
than 10,000 places where the base (A, C, G or U) in a cell's RNA messages is
not the one expected from the DNA sequences used to make the RNA read-out.
When some of these 'mismatched' RNAs were subsequently translated into
proteins, the latter reflected the 'incorrect' RNA sequences rather than
that of the underlying DNA.
It was already known that some cells 'edit' RNA after it has been produced
to give a new coding sequence, but the new work suggests that such editing
occurs much more often in human cells than anyone had realized, and that
hitherto unknown editing mechanisms must be involved to produce some of the
changes observed. If the finding is confirmed by other investigators — and
some scientists already say they see the same phenomenon in their own data
— it could change biologists' understanding of the cell and alter the way
researchers study genetic contribution to disease.
Editing the central dogma
"The central dogma says that there is faithful transcription of DNA into RNA
. This challenges that idea on a much larger scale than was known," says
Chris Gunter, director of research affairs at the HudsonAlpha Institute for
Biotechnology in Huntsville, Alabama.
The work suggests that RNA editing is providing a previously unappreciated
source of human genetic diversity that could affect, for instance, how
vulnerable different people are to disease.
Cheung does not know whether there are heritable changes, passed down from
parent to child, that affect how much RNA editing occurs in different people
. But scientists already know of a handful of RNA editing proteins that play
a role in human health, such as the APOBEC enzymes, some of which have
antiviral activity. Researchers investigating the connection between
genetics and disease have been stymied by their inability to find strong
connections between genetic variation and risk for most common diseases,
leading researchers to wonder where the 'missing heritability' is hiding.
The new study at least provides one place to look.
"These events could explain some of the 'missing heritability' because they
are not present in everyone and therefore introduce a source of genetic
variation which was previously unaccounted for," says Gunter.
Living with error
But because they do not know what mechanism might be responsible, most
scientists contacted by Nature remained cautious about the significance of
the finding and its possible impact on biology. Some say it is possible that
technical errors could have caused the results. For instance, high-
throughput sequencing machines can make systematic errors in DNA and RNA
sequencing experiments.
And even if the findings hold up, it is still too early to know whether '
mismatching' plays an important role in human biology or not.
"The devil is in the details — to determine if the results are caused by
some unintended technical or computational flaw or are correctly describing
a biological phenomenon," says Thomas Gingeras at the Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory in New York. "Assuming the latter, I would be encouraged to look
at our own large data sets to see if we see similar phenomenona."
Other researchers, such as Manolis Dermitzakis at the University of Geneva
in Switzerland, say they are seeing the phenomenon in their data. Indeed,
Cheung's team drew in part on data generated by the 1000 Genomes project, of
which Dermitzakis is a member. However, Dermitzakis says it is still
unclear how important the phenomenon is for disease susceptibility.
Cheung's group attempts to address many of these concerns, some of which
were raised when the preliminary work was presented last November (see 'DNA
sequence may be lost in translation') at the annual meeting of the American
Society for Human Genetics, in Washington DC. Since then, the team has been
looking for possible errors that could have caused the results.
For example, the researchers first observed DNA–RNA 'mismatches' in data
generated by next-generation sequencing technologies in the International
HapMap Project and the 1000 Genomes project. They have now confirmed some of
the putative DNA-to-RNA changes using traditional Sanger sequencing, and
have found the same changes in different people, across different cell types
, and reflected in proteins.
Cheung says that at first "we truly did not believe it". But after
performing the additional experiments "we cannot explain this by any obvious
technical errors, so we are pretty convinced that this is real," she says.
Researchers who study RNA editing, which up to now was known mostly from
plants and some unicellular human parasites, are intrigued by the new
finding.
Kazuko Nishikura of the Wistar institute in Philadelphia says she was
sceptical at first, because some of the base changes could not be explained
by previously identified mechanisms. But she was convinced once she saw
Cheung's data.
"It's really exciting, because this study reports a different variety of RNA
editing that is much more widespread than existing mechanisms," Nishikura
says.
References
1. Li, M. et al. Science doi:10.1126/science.1207018 (2011).
i*8
6 楼
我拿了32K的limit，有没有比我还高的
不过申完就后悔了。
【在 f**********n 的大作中提到】
: chase underwriting guideline似乎松了一些。
: 老夫申了CO, 被废。 之后打1-888-245-0625， 问了几句，批了。 15k.
不过申完就后悔了。
【在 f**********n 的大作中提到】
: chase underwriting guideline似乎松了一些。
: 老夫申了CO, 被废。 之后打1-888-245-0625， 问了几句，批了。 15k.
g*x
7 楼
两个人性格不一样是关键
【在 l****t 的大作中提到】
: 可惜魅力差好多，主要有两个原因
: 1, 吐词不清
: 2, 长了一张苦瓜脸
: 3, 显老
【在 l****t 的大作中提到】
: 可惜魅力差好多，主要有两个原因
: 1, 吐词不清
: 2, 长了一张苦瓜脸
: 3, 显老
A*d
8 楼
不确定论，没有恒久不变的定理，呵呵
C*n
9 楼
事实证明，和客户死磕是不明智的。。。
g*x
10 楼
教主asshole 30年没人阻拦（曾经有人尝试过，都被fuck了）
但是cook只要asshole一下，别人就会说，你又不是教主
【在 l****t 的大作中提到】
: 可惜魅力差好多，主要有两个原因
: 1, 吐词不清
: 2, 长了一张苦瓜脸
: 3, 显老
但是cook只要asshole一下，别人就会说，你又不是教主
【在 l****t 的大作中提到】
: 可惜魅力差好多，主要有两个原因
: 1, 吐词不清
: 2, 长了一张苦瓜脸
: 3, 显老
l*d
11 楼
和一个做human genetics聊过,觉得如果现象是真的,而且发现机理的话,会是一个很大
的突破,如果因为这个发现而在很多遗传病上有突破的话,可以拿奖了
的突破,如果因为这个发现而在很多遗传病上有突破的话,可以拿奖了
a*s
12 楼
教主临终前已经起好了草。
【在 l****t 的大作中提到】
: 可惜魅力差好多，主要有两个原因
: 1, 吐词不清
: 2, 长了一张苦瓜脸
: 3, 显老
【在 l****t 的大作中提到】
: 可惜魅力差好多，主要有两个原因
: 1, 吐词不清
: 2, 长了一张苦瓜脸
: 3, 显老
L*O
13 楼
谢谢分享~~~~
z*a
14 楼
thanks for the info
A*O
15 楼
从这个研究可以看出，人类基因组计划及其后续计划是多么的重要！
没有这些数据，和谁比对？怎么比对？
那些守着自己那三亩田，到现在还嘀咕质疑着HGP重要性的伟大的小作坊生物学家们，
站高一点，看远一点，对自己的成长是有利的。
that
acids
that
that do
of
more
messages is
【在 l***d 的大作中提到】
: any comments?
: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110519/full/news.2011.304.html#
: All science students learn the 'central dogma' of molecular biology: that
: the sequence of bases encoded in DNA determines the sequence of amino acids
: that makes up the corresponding proteins. But now researchers suggest that
: human cells may complicate this tidy picture by making many proteins that do
: not match their underlying DNA sequences.
: In work published today in Science1, Vivian Cheung at the University of
: Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and her team report that they have found more
: than 10,000 places where the base (A, C, G or U) in a cell's RNA messages is
没有这些数据，和谁比对？怎么比对？
那些守着自己那三亩田，到现在还嘀咕质疑着HGP重要性的伟大的小作坊生物学家们，
站高一点，看远一点，对自己的成长是有利的。
that
acids
that
that do
of
more
messages is
【在 l***d 的大作中提到】
: any comments?
: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110519/full/news.2011.304.html#
: All science students learn the 'central dogma' of molecular biology: that
: the sequence of bases encoded in DNA determines the sequence of amino acids
: that makes up the corresponding proteins. But now researchers suggest that
: human cells may complicate this tidy picture by making many proteins that do
: not match their underlying DNA sequences.
: In work published today in Science1, Vivian Cheung at the University of
: Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and her team report that they have found more
: than 10,000 places where the base (A, C, G or U) in a cell's RNA messages is
l*d
16 楼
我觉得这个文章很有意思,说明DNA到RNA那一步不是100% faithful,那么对于一些遗传
变异的疾病的话,有可能并不是DNA mutated,而是RNA那一步mutated,如果发现相关机理
的话,对这一类疾病非常有指导意义,如果是真的,后续工作足以拿奖了.
变异的疾病的话,有可能并不是DNA mutated,而是RNA那一步mutated,如果发现相关机理
的话,对这一类疾病非常有指导意义,如果是真的,后续工作足以拿奖了.
相关阅读
How to stimuate Rac1, Cdc42, and RhoA activation in vivo in mice?如何在小鼠模型上tracking 大鼠的细胞晓东前辈文章的引用率，太太太让人震惊了!!referred or refereed conference publications?大鼠和小鼠全身一共多少血？关于qRT-PCR还在lab的举手求助细胞膜蛋白的提取paper help!!!!!!! thanks a lotZinc-finger nuclease 看起来蛮牛啊许田在通过老鼠基因还原人的行为做减数分裂的博后可以申请什么fellowship啊肖传国丢了流氓的脸，还是文化人的脸？急求一篇paper!!! thanksHelp!: RNA genomic position 数据库哪里下载？请问美国有没有和国内的“主任医师”对应的职称？ (转载)Nationwide 儿童医院怎么样？请教大肠杆菌蛋白表达体系可以对蛋白进行磷酸化修饰吗？有哪些造假和无法重复的实验引用上千的？每周一歌：教授竟是黑社会--方舟子遇袭案告... (转载)