I've been reading over the fellowship application our new post-doc submitted to NIH. NIH didn't fund it, but the comments were quite supportive so we want to fix it up and send it in for the next deadline (June sometime?). For me this is also an opportunity to think carefully about the immediate and long-term experiments we're planning. The immediate experiments will provide preliminary data that should make the proposal more compelling, and will also be a foundation for the full NIH R01 proposal we hope to submit in the fall. The medium-term is the experiments the proposals actually propose to do, and the long-term is where they'll lead, both for the post-doc's career (an issue raised in the reviews of his application) and for my lab's ongoing research.
One preliminary analysis we should do is comparison of the two genomes he'll use. Both are sequenced, and it would be good to provide table and/or a figure giving specific numbers of SNPs (is it called a polymorphism when you're only comparing two individuals?), numbers and lengths of indels, and information about specific differences relevant to the proposed analysis. This could be an appendix if such are allowed, or a small table in the text.
Another thing the proposal needs is a more explicit description of the calculations that underlie its claims that the scope of the sequencing is sufficient for the information desired. He'll be creating pools of DNA from different stages and sequencing these. Depending on the source of the pool of DNA, this will require a lot of sequencing, a ton of sequencing, and what until recently would have been an absurd amount of sequencing. We can afford to do some sequencing on our present budget, and the R01 proposal is mainly to get funding for the massive sequencing. I don't understand the sequencing methods he's proposing as well as I need to, and I haven't seen any of the calculations yet. We need to lay them out in enough detail that the reviewers will have confidence in us. Perhaps we can also create some simple diagrams illustrating how the different pools will be analyzed.
- Home
- Angry by Choice
- Catalogue of Organisms
- Chinleana
- Doc Madhattan
- Games with Words
- Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
- History of Geology
- Moss Plants and More
- Pleiotropy
- Plektix
- RRResearch
- Skeptic Wonder
- The Culture of Chemistry
- The Curious Wavefunction
- The Phytophactor
- The View from a Microbiologist
- Variety of Life
Field of Science
-
-
Change of address6 months ago in Variety of Life
-
Change of address6 months ago in Catalogue of Organisms
-
-
Earth Day: Pogo and our responsibility9 months ago in Doc Madhattan
-
What I Read 20249 months ago in Angry by Choice
-
I've moved to Substack. Come join me there.11 months ago in Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
-
-
-
-
Histological Evidence of Trauma in Dicynodont Tusks7 years ago in Chinleana
-
Posted: July 21, 2018 at 03:03PM7 years ago in Field Notes
-
Why doesn't all the GTA get taken up?7 years ago in RRResearch
-
-
Harnessing innate immunity to cure HIV9 years ago in Rule of 6ix
-
-
-
-
-
-
post doc job opportunity on ribosome biochemistry!10 years ago in Protein Evolution and Other Musings
-
Blogging Microbes- Communicating Microbiology to Netizens11 years ago in Memoirs of a Defective Brain
-
Re-Blog: June Was 6th Warmest Globally11 years ago in The View from a Microbiologist
-
-
-
The Lure of the Obscure? Guest Post by Frank Stahl13 years ago in Sex, Genes & Evolution
-
-
Lab Rat Moving House14 years ago in Life of a Lab Rat
-
Goodbye FoS, thanks for all the laughs14 years ago in Disease Prone
-
-
Slideshow of NASA's Stardust-NExT Mission Comet Tempel 1 Flyby14 years ago in The Large Picture Blog
-
in The Biology Files
Not your typical science blog, but an 'open science' research blog. Watch me fumbling my way towards understanding how and why bacteria take up DNA, and getting distracted by other cool questions.
1 comment:
Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="http://www.fieldofscience.com/">FoS</a> = FoS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Rosie!
ReplyDelete(We've actually met once at a 'meet the profs' night put on by SUS a few yrs ago... I've followed your recommendation to read profs' papers prior to approaching them for volunteer positions, etc. (DUH! but wasn't so obvious at the time...) and now I pass on that advice to younger undergrads! =D )
For a long time I was confused about the benefits of recombination, even though it was an obvious given fact that every highschool kid 'knows'. I thought about again and again but it just didn't really make sense.
So I asked PJK while bugging him with protistology questions as per usual, and to my great surprise -- apparently I wasn't going retarded/crazy! He referred me to your work, so I recently read your 2002 Nat Rev Gen opinion piece, and am now quite surprised how dogmas ("Sex is good.") persist in the face of contrary evidence.
It seems that the importance of evolutionary 'byproducts' in increase of complexity becomes more and more evident, especially in the important part of biodiversity (prokaryotes and protists =D).
So it seems that the ability for recombination, at least in prokaryotes, is a merely byproduct of the DNA repair mechanism? Then this 'glitch' could be harnessed by transposons, as well as potentially beneficial mechanisms, later on. That is so much easier to explain than "Suddenly sex happened. And it was good."
It's PJK's fault I now find evolution interesting again, and now you two convinced me sex arose as a neutral byproduct... and 'recombination' is likely not the reason it happened!
Now I'm reading Tom Cavalier-Smith's paper on evol of sex in euks... I'm being a very crappy developmental cell biologist >_>
Anyway, just saying hi!
Cheers,
-Psi/Yana-