What treatment encourages cells to incorporate DNA plasmids during a bacterial transformation?

A) Heat stock in warm water bath followed by ice bath
B) Plating on nutrient agar with antibiotic (kanamycin or Ampicillin)
C) Achieving exponential cell growth
D) Assaying for recombinant proteins

How is the package of DNA different in eukaryote and prokaryotes?
A) Eukaryote have more chromosomes and each is linear
B) Eukaryote have more chromosomes and each is circular
C) Eukaryote have some carbohydrate molecules attached to their chromosomes
D) Eukaryote have less chromosomes than prokaryotes

Thanks!

STRANDSTROM et al have observed that 50% of normal and sick dogs sera reacted with one or more recombinant proteins of the Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV). By using HIV 1 and Human T lymphotropic virus (HTLV) I and II commercial Western Blot (WB), we have studied 30 dogs sera with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) and 19 of dogs with lymphoma. Nine normal dogs are tested as control. For HIV 1 WB, none of the 49 sera collected in dogs with diseases and of the 9 normal sera is reactive. On the other hand, for HTLV I/II WB, 5 sera of SLE dogs and one serum of a dog with lymphoma are reactive. Three SLE sera give a P24 band only and the two other SLE sera a P42 band only. The serum of the dog with lymphoma is reactive with 3 proteins (rgP21, P24 and P42). Our results are not similar with those obtained by STRANDSTROM et al despite the used HIV antigens are equivalent. A significantly number of sera (10.2%) is reactive in the HTLV I/II WB. The hypothesis of a retroviral agent in dog’s species may be evoked.

IF DOGS HAVE HIV PROTEIN IN THEM DOES THAT MEAN THEY CAN TRANSMITT HIV TO HUMANS ?

A few months ago, someone asked the CDC an embarrassing question concerning dogs and HIV antibodies:

"Dear CDC, …

Why are half of dogs ‘HIV’-positive, and if my breeder dog Cerberus, whom I love deeply turns out to be positive (he tested positive, then negative, then positive, then negative again), should I have him put to sleep?

EG. (Cancer Res 1990 Sep 1;50(17 Suppl):5628S-5630S Studies with canine sera that contain antibodies which recognize human immunodeficiency virus structural proteins. Strandstrom HV, Higgins JR, Mossie K, Theilen GH. College of Veterinary Medicine, Helsinki, Finland):

Abstract. In a serological survey, using the immunoblotting technique, we found that substantial numbers of dog sera from both normal and diseased dogs, including dogs with neoplasia, reacted with one or more human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) recombinant proteins. A total of 144 dog sera were tested, and 72 (50%) of them reacted with one or more HIV recombinant structural proteins. Ten dog sera were also tested for reactivity with simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV), and caprine arthritis encephalitis virus (CAEV). Six dog sera reacted with at least the major core protein of HIV, while one of the dog sera tested reacted with SIV core protein, and there were no reactions with the viral proteins of either FIV or CAEV. Cell extracts from canine peripheral blood lymphocytes cocultivated with human cells and an extract of human cells infected with HIV were immunoblotted against dog sera which previously tested positive or negative on HIV recombinant protein commercially available Western blot strips. Two lymphocyte lysates and the HIV-infected Hut cell lysate reacted with the Western blot strip-positive dog serum; however, no reactions were seen with the Western blot strip-negative dog serum)."

Incidently, it has also been demonstrated that goats and cows are also known to test positive using the current "HIV" test kits, EG. (Willman et al., Heterophile Antibodies to Bovine and Caprine Proteins Causing False-Positive Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 and Other Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay Results. Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, p. 615-616, Vol. 6, No. 4, July 1999)

Remarkably, the CDC responded soon afterward:

"Thank you for writing CDC STD/HIVNet.

Dogs do NOT become infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). A dog would not test positive for HIV. HIV is the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. HIV is a member of the human retrovirus family. All viruses and retroviruses are simple microbes that have no metabolism and cannot function independently of other life forms. They lack the basic machinery for reproduction and must invade other living organisms to reproduce or replicate. In other words, retroviruses and viruses rely on the cells of the host for reproduction to survive. Each retrovirus has a specific host. For example, a human retrovirus, like HIV, requires a human host. So a human retrovirus cannot survive in other animals or insects. Animals, like dogs, have their own retroviruses. These animal
retroviruses do not affect humans.

The article (Standtrom et al.) seems to be stating that antibodies (substances produced by the body to fight infection) in a dog’s blood reacted to structural proteins of the virus (HIV) and NOT stating that dogs are infected with HIV."

This answer from the CDC prompted the following thoughts:

"It seems to me that the really important point to make from this is not just that dogs, cows, sheep, have ‘HIV surrogate markers’ but never develop ‘AIDS’. The more important question I take from the studies you mentioned would be: Why, when antibodies of a dog react to certain proteins manufactured in a lab, is this interpreted as ‘antibodies reacting to structural proteins of HIV’ but at the same time NOT evidence that ‘[these] dogs are infected with HIV’, yet when antibodies of a human react to exactly the same proteins, this is taken as evidence of ‘HIV’ infection?

The CDC’s interpretation of Strandstrom et al seems to be an (indirect) admission that simply detecting a certain combination of antibodies to proteins in blood is not sufficient to conclude infection with an exogenous retrovirus. Certainly, they believe felines are capable of such retroviral infection, as I see countless webpages devoted to ‘FIV’ (’feline immunodeficiency virus’). So, my question to the CDC would be: how do they know that detection of a certain combination of antibodies to proteins indicates infection with an exogenous retrovirus in a human, but not in a dog? An equally reasonable interpretation might be that these combinations of antibodies indicate infection with an exogenous retrovirus in a dog, but not a human. So, how do they know it is one
case and not the other?

The only way I can see the CDC can claim infection in one case and not the other, is if some additional validation process had been achieved in

Why are half of dogs ‘HIV’-positive, and if my breeder dog Cerberus, whom I love deeply turns out to be positive (he tested positive, then negative, then positive, then negative again), should I have him put to sleep?

Studies with canine sera that contain antibodies which recognize human immunodeficiency virus structural proteins. Strandstrom HV, Higgins JR, Mossie K, Theilen GH. College of Veterinary Medicine, Helsinki, Finland):

Abstract. In a serological survey, using the immunoblotting technique, we found that substantial numbers of dog sera from both normal and diseased dogs, including dogs with neoplasia, reacted with one or more human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) recombinant proteins. A total of 144 dog sera were tested, and 72 (50%) of them reacted with one or more HIV recombinant structural proteins. Ten dog sera were also tested for reactivity with simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV), and caprine arthritis encephalitis virus (CAEV). Six dog sera reacted with at least the major core protein of HIV, while one of the dog sera tested reacted with SIV core protein, and there were no reactions with the viral proteins of either FIV or CAEV. Cell extracts from canine peripheral blood lymphocytes cocultivated with human cells and an extract of human cells infected with HIV were immunoblotted against dog sera which previously tested positive or negative on HIV recombinant protein commercially available Western blot strips. Two lymphocyte lysates and the HIV-infected Hut cell lysate reacted with the Western blot strip-positive dog serum; however, no reactions were seen with the Western blot strip-negative dog serum)."

Incidently, it has also been demonstrated that goats and cows are also known to test positive using the current "HIV" test kits, EG. (Willman et al., Heterophile Antibodies to Bovine and Caprine Proteins Causing False-Positive Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 and Other Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay Results. Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, p. 615-616, Vol. 6, No. 4, July 1999)
Remarkably, the CDC responded soon afterward:

Dogs do NOT become infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). A dog would not test positive for HIV. HIV is the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. HIV is a member of the human retrovirus family. All viruses and retroviruses are simple microbes that have no metabolism and cannot function independently of other life forms. They lack the basic machinery for reproduction and must invade other living organisms to reproduce or replicate. In other words, retroviruses and viruses rely on the cells of the host for reproduction to survive. Each retrovirus has a specific host. For example, a human retrovirus, like HIV, requires a human host. So a human retrovirus cannot survive in other animals or insects. Animals, like dogs, have their own retroviruses. These animal
retroviruses do not affect humans.
The article (Standtrom et al.) seems to be stating that antibodies (substances produced by the body to fight infection) in a dog’s blood reacted to structural proteins of the virus (HIV) and NOT stating that dogs are infected with HIV."

This answer from the CDC prompted the following thoughts:
It seems to me that the really important point to make from this is not just that dogs, cows, sheep, have ‘HIV surrogate markers’ but never develop ‘AIDS’. The more important question I take from the studies you mentioned would be: Why, when antibodies of a dog react to certain proteins manufactured in a lab, is this interpreted as ‘antibodies reacting to structural proteins of HIV’ but at the same time NOT evidence that ‘[these] dogs are infected with HIV’, yet when antibodies of a human react to exactly the same proteins, this is taken as evidence of ‘HIV’ infection?

The CDC’s interpretation of Strandstrom et al seems to be an (indirect) admission that simply detecting a certain combination of antibodies to proteins in blood is not sufficient to conclude infection with an exogenous retrovirus. Certainly, they believe felines are capable of such retroviral infection, as I see countless webpages devoted to ‘FIV’ (’feline immunodeficiency virus’). So, my question to the CDC would be: how do they know that detection of a certain combination of antibodies to proteins indicates infection with an exogenous retrovirus in a human, but not in a dog? An equally reasonable interpretation might be that these combinations of antibodies indicate infection with an exogenous retrovirus in a dog, but not a human. So, how do they know it is onease and not the other?
The only way I can see the CDC can claim infection in one case and not the other, is if some additional validation process had been achieved in the one case and failed in the other. I’m not aware of any such process, as all such ‘validation processes’ that I’m aware of consist of simply testing WB against itself (reproducibility) or using some vague combination of indi

I was reading the notes given to me by the lecturer. It is stated that alpha-1-antitrypsin could be found in Dolly’s milk. I am just wondering will we as human obtain the protein from Dolly’s milk if we were to drink it. That is because as far as I know, if the milk(containing AAT protein) gets into our stomach, it gets digested and nothing will happen. But why do people still produce recombinant proteins in animals’ milk? Or do they purify the milk to obtain the protein? Thanks.

I have an experience of working with a biopharma company in India.i was into down stream purification of recombinant proteins.so wanted to know about any start up company or any consultant agency which can help me in sponsoring my H1B

In 1000 words which expression system is the best for expression of recombinant proteins and Why Bacteria, Yeast, Fungi,Transgenic plants or Animals

I am analysing recombinant proteins in RP HPLC. i usually got 35th mnt RT in grace vydac column. but when i install my new vydac column, i got 43rd mnt RT in the same mobile phase and the same sample. no doubt abt the mb phase, temp, sample. what ll be the reason for that.i got the same 43rd mnt profile in the new phenomenox column also.

I have a science project. The project is to prove that insulin and other protein/peptide hormones can be synthesized in a fairly simple and inexpensive manner, using machines and materials that a slightly above-average laboratory would have, or would have the funds to buy.

I need more information (including very specific laboratory protocols) on how recombinant proteins ARE synthesized, as well as how they CAN BE theoretically synthesized. Keep in mind that keeping cost of materials down is a priority second only to producing the proteins.

Please do not reply saying I should have chosen an easier project.