I'm legitimately knocking out a couple of blogposts to get my brain fired up for writing and my hands used to the new (quieter) keyboard I brought to a super intensive 3 day writing camp. R01 resubmit peer pressure time! As you might guess, both R01s I should be writing on are about the human liver and not honey bees, but you probably have a dumb way of doing things as well.
Where the f' is the control key? I'd rather look for it here. Any honey bees are super cool!
Did you know that worker and drones (which I thought were the same thing) develop at very different rates? Neither did I. Do I care? Right now I do. And these authors did and that's what really matters. I'm pretty sure it isn't a great time to be a honey farmer person.
Want to talk about an experimental sampling procedure that doesn't sound like fun? These authors collected 1,000 developing workers and the same number of developing drones from at least 8 different time points, up to 70 hours. I feel like a gif should go in here, but that would definitely make it clear to everyone around me that I'm not working on my grants. I'm warming up my brain!
The sample prep is ...interesting....and kind of old fashioned, but that's how they've been doing it in their group. Acetone precipitation and a lot of urea. Probably there's lots of weird stuff in the developing bees. Would I have put them in liquid N2, smacked them with a hammer and S-trapped it and gotten the same or better results? We'll never know, but that's how I'd do it.
The boring stuff is well-described, which is a refreshing change of pace this year. QE HF ran in top20 mode and a gradient I could reproduce without guessing. Yay MCP reviewers! Downstream analysis in PEAKS against a surprisingly complete sounding FASTA. Solid work all around and - screw it. -
8 time points!
No comments:
Post a Comment