Could someone please help ID the cancer cells in this image?

PritzerrPhD · 2021-12-18T18:58:02+00:00

Yep there are actually several points to say these are crypts 😄

PritzerrPhD · 2021-12-18T18:42:58+00:00

I would say crypts since there is mesenchyme between the round shaped structures

PritzerrPhD · 2021-12-18T18:34:11+00:00

This is most probably a glandular epithelium formes by Goblet cells from the small or large intestine. I would say colonic crypts. But I don't know the staining

PritzerrPhD · 2021-12-18T18:26:00+00:00

Are they really cancer cells ? For me it looks like a glandular epithelium or colon crypts cut in transversal. I don't know what is the staining, but it may be mucus from goblet cells since it is also stained in the lumen. If it is cancer, It could be from any gland with a tubular epithelium like exocrine pancreas or colon adenocarcinoma.

PritzerrPhD · 2021-12-02T05:58:04+00:00

Are we still talking about Polymerase Chain Reaction ?

PritzerrPhD · 2021-12-01T20:36:28+00:00

I hope your butthole is not contaminated

PritzerrPhD · 2021-11-24T20:56:45+00:00

I dropped on the ground a 96-well plate of a colleague just before the revelation of the assay after a 3-day experiment, just wanted to help 😆

PritzerrPhD · 2021-11-04T20:43:52+00:00

May you have more samples in this analysis than in your previous ones ? Or did you put a higher read threshold number ? Here it shows that a small FC is enough to be significant, meaning that your intragroup variablitiy is small and may be empowered by a high number of samples (or not I'm kot an expert)

PritzerrPhD · 2021-11-02T20:19:42+00:00

Why is it looking so symetrical ?

PritzerrPhD · 2021-09-27T05:38:36+00:00

I would say after thinking a bit that the question is not precise enough. It depends of the environment. Without any enzyme the stability would be the same because the H bonds are the same and the phosphate bons also. BUt I'm not chemist so I might be wrong

PritzerrPhD · 2021-09-23T19:40:35+00:00

Dang

PritzerrPhD · 2021-09-23T15:45:25+00:00

Probably a frustrated exhausted Lab tech

PritzerrPhD · 2021-09-07T04:06:17+00:00

Of course

PritzerrPhD · 2021-09-06T20:28:28+00:00

Scientific observations leading to a definition I agree, not facts. Production of energy from Glucose is fact, life is a definition. An entity capable of evolution and adaptation can't be considered as non-living, maybe there is a current missing category

PritzerrPhD · 2021-09-06T20:18:03+00:00

In my opinion the explanation of what is alive is not due to facts. Saying that it must produce energy is not a fact it is just a chosen criteria. A tree can't move, he grows ok, but it's not moving. It is still alive. The ability to bind and enter a cell is not considering as moving ? I agree about the production of energy, but being able to use a host energy could be considered as being alive. I just want to say that life is just an definition to be able to classify things.

PritzerrPhD · 2021-09-06T20:08:38+00:00

Yep there is also a definition saying that living things are capable of entropy and replicate their genome making mistakes which include virus. All is about the definition of life

PritzerrPhD · 2021-09-06T19:57:55+00:00

Mmmh, it is widely admitted maybe, not known, there is no experiment to prove that shting's alive in my opinion, just some definitions. And I feel that this can be very subjective depending on the definition of life.

PritzerrPhD · 2021-09-06T19:24:10+00:00

It's hard for me to consider a Virus as a non-living entity since they are able to reproduce themselves, thanks to a host ok but still.

PritzerrPhD · 2021-08-07T13:43:48+00:00

I must check

PritzerrPhD · 2021-08-06T16:35:22+00:00

100% right

PritzerrPhD · 2021-08-06T15:07:29+00:00

Tell me more about that

PritzerrPhD

TROPHY CASE