References 1. Generally, conditioned media from cells generated to overexpress an antibody are run through a bead column similar to an immunoprecipitation and then the bound antibody is eluted off the column. However, how a company generates this antibody can vary (ie, using insect or mammalian cells) as well as the methods used to purify the antibody. This can make a big difference in what additional proteins may be present in the antibody as it is shipped. 2. These experiments in Figure 1 were performed with antibodies, not commercially available, that were generated by 4 different companies. All were raised to detect Receptor X and selected for in vivo use because they inhibit the binding of Receptor Xs ligand. Their use in vivo has been to test whether inhibiting Receptor X can inhibit tumor growth. In general, these antibodies are not different from those commercially available and used in Westerns yet it is possible that that these antibodies may not be as pure as those you buy commercially.
REVIEW
Hypothesis - 24
Hypothesis - 25
12. Bill C-13. An Act respecting assisted human reproductive technologies and related research. 2002. Second Session, Thirty-seventh Parliament, House of Commons of Canada. 13. NARAL, Human Embryo Research, History of Federal Embryo Research Funding Bans. January 21, 2003. 14. Thomson JA et al. (1998). Science 282:1145-7. 15.http://www.whitehouse.gove/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/stem.cell.bush
16.Kennedy D (2003). Science 300:865. 17.Kuehn BM (2003). J Am Vet Med Assoc 222:1060-1; Tamashiro KL et al. (2002). Nature Medicine 8:262-7. 18. Simerly C et al. (2003). Science 300:297. 19. Humpherys D et al. (2001). Science 293:95-7; Young LE et al. (2001). Nature Genetics 27:153-4 ; Humpherys D et al. (2002). Proc Nat Acad Science USA 99:12889-94. 20. Chambers I et al. (2003). Cell 113:643-655; Mitsui K et al. (2003). Cell 113:631-642.
REVIEW
The homologous origin of analogous structures: A tale of an eye for an eye in evolutionary biology
Cecilia DAlterio1 and Mariano Loza-Coll2,*
1. Department of Zoology University of Toronto 2. Department of Medical Biophysics - University of Toronto *Correspondence: lozacoll@sten.sunnybrook.utoronto.ca That same old analogy-homology dichotomy. Evolutionary biologists, like good historians, do not stop at merely describing events that happened hundreds of millions of years ago. Instead, they try and learn from the past, in a very human attempt to come to grasps with our present and have a shot at predicting certain aspects of the future. Because we cannot go back in time and tweak our biological variables of interest, evolutionary biologists are limited to speculate why things happened in one way over others based on fossil records and present day phylogenetic evidence. This article deals with just one aspect of the ever-present struggle to discriminate analogies from homologies among organisms. Analogous structures are those that serve similar functions among organisms, even though they do not share an immediate common ancestor. In simpler terms, analogous structures do the same thing but do not originate from the same embryonic precursor. The classic textbook example of analogous structures is that of wings in the animal kingdom. The wings of your favorite butterfly, a bat and a blue jay originate from very different embryonic structures, via very different developmental mechanisms. However, one can easily agree on that they are somehow structurally akin and that they are quite similar from a mechanistic viewpoint, conferring these three individuals with the ability to fly. Homologous structures, on the other hand, are almost the opposite; they are those that share the same embryonic origin, regardless of what their function in the fully developed adult is. If learned embryologists can bear
Hypothesis - 26