Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Specifically it's the one that makes everything glow, thus a bad example.
Don't follow why it's a bad example, DDM stated it would be harder to make the entire body glow than individual parts. DNA of the GFP in jellyfish was used in mice embryos and it made them glow throughout. As to date, I don't think anyone has made just a mouse's tail, nipples or scrotum glow.
Yes, it's possibly no one has tried.
Originally posted by Robtard
Don't follow why it's a bad example, DDM stated it would be harder to make the entire body glow than individual parts. DNA of the GFP in jellyfish was used in mice embryos and it made them glow throughout. As to date, I don't think anyone has made just a mouse's tail, nipples or scrotum glow.Yes, it's possibly no one has tried.
GFP makes the whole body glow that's the only thing it does. Many (probably most) other types of bioluminescence make specific places glow. Saying that it's hard to make specific places glow after using GFP isn't a good example because GFP does do that in the first place, it's sort of like saying making a red light bulb is hard because you've only bought red ones.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
GFP makes the whole body glow that's the only thing it does.
This is wrong. GFP glows green yes. However, it only makes the whole organism glow when it is expressed in the entire organism.
GFP is VERY commonly used in targeting. I myself have used nematodes where only their larynx glow green, well, because tha's how we made them. GFP is not expressed in the organism as a random protein. It is coupled to a specific protein you want to track. You can attach GFP to albumin or hair proteins...things that give the appearance of a large portion (or the entire exterior) of an animal glowing, but every cell, in fact, does not glow unless you couple GFP to a hell of a lot of different proteins or some very common ones (beta actin). Normally you DONT want this because you're trying to track the presence of a specific protein or the lineage of a particular cell (as in developmental biology)
This is the basic way in which this protein is used and has been for years. Saying it "makes the whole body glow" is a pretty blatant misconception.
Originally posted by Robtard
You know, thinking back to the days when I used to keep an aquarium reef (80g), I can remember several corals, anemones and sea-lugs that glowed green under [certain] light and it wasn't through their entire bodies.So you may be wrong in that assertion.
You're right, I am wrong about GFP, some jellyfish use it to make specific areas glow. However, daudedomn*, was right that GFP is not bioluminescence and thus doesn't quite count. GFP is florescent it simply has a high florescent quantum yield (it charges up in light then emits photons). Bioluminescence is a chemical reaction.
* or whatever
http://www.videosift.com/video/TED-Talks-Bonnie-Bassler-How-bacteria-communicates
The first part talks about luminescence and the second half is mindblowing. Srsly.
Originally posted by Robtard
Whoa, I refuse to believe DDM was correct and that Robtard was incorrect.Bioluminescent is light given off by a living organism, ergo GFP is a type of bioluminescence
No. I'm right. Those are two different things, bro. BL and FPs are two different things. You think they are the same only because you equate the two as "light". That's not accurate. One is glowing on it's own through a chemical reaction. The other is fluorescence when acted on by an outside electromagnetic radiation (light) source.
Now, back to topic.
We could use FPs to make certain parts glow in light. That wouldn't be as cool as BL, but it would be fun, imo. When it's "kinky-time", you turn on that light. Heh. Certainly would make it easier in teh darks, imo.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No. I'm right. Those are two different things, bro. BL and FPs are two different things. You think they are the same only because you equate the two as "light". That's not accurate. One is glowing on it's own through a chemical reaction. The other is fluorescence when acted on by an outside electromagnetic radiation (light) source.Now, back to topic.
We could use FPs to make certain parts glow in light. That wouldn't be as cool as BL, but it would be fun, imo. When it's "kinky-time", you turn on that light. Heh. Certainly would make it easier in teh darks, imo.
No, you're wrong and even Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.
Both are bioluminescent, different types of, sure, but still fall under the bioluminescent category. Bio = living/life, Luminescent = light
Originally posted by Robtard
No, you're wrong and even Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.Both are bioluminescent, different types of, sure, but still fall under the bioluminescent category. Bio = living/life, Luminescent = light
That's nice but the people who study the stuff professionally disagree with you. There is a reason that rocks can be flurorescent after all.
http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/~biolum/myth.html
Myth: Bioluminescence is the same as "fluorescence" (or "phosphorescence", or "chemiluminescence"😉.
FACT: All of the terms apply to the production of light from chemicals, but bioluminescence is only similar to chemiluminescence.
In fluorescence, the energy from an external source of light is absorbed and almost immediately reëmitted. (See Chemistry for more detail.) The emitted light, with its modified color, is only visible while the stimulating light is turned on. You don't see fluorescence in complete darkness. Because energy must be conserved, the wavelength that comes out is longer (=redder, =less energy) than what went in. This is how laundry detergents can get things "whiter than white": by absorbing non-visible UV light and fluorescing in the visible spectrum.
Phosphorescence is similar to fluorescence except that the excited product is more stable, so that the time until the energy is released is much longer, resulting in a glow after the light has been removed. This is the basis behind glow-in-the-dark stickers.
Chemiluminescence is a general term for production of light when the excitation energy has come from a chemical reaction (as opposed to the absorption of photons, in fluorescence).
Bioluminescence is a subset of chemiluminescence, where the light-producing chemical reaction occurs inside an organism.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's nice but the people who study the stuff professionally disagree with you.
You can get snappy all you like and I think it's cute, but Google "bioluminescent mice" and you'll see paper/page after page about these, tada, you guessed it, bioluminescent mice and how they're being studied from 'wound healing' to cancer research.
Go on, Google it.
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
But the stain is really gone, right?
Yes, you could test that by scraping the area where the stain is and seeing if it reappears. I assume based on what they said there that the effect makes things temporarily glow so that the product seems that much more effective.
Originally posted by Robtard
You can get snappy all you like and I think it's cute, but Google "bioluminescent mice" and you'll see paper/page after page about these, tada, you guessed it, bioluminescent mice and how they're being studied from 'wound healing' to cancer research.Go on, Google it.
Google fluorescent rocks. Florescence is not necessarily bioluminescence, nor is bioluminescence neccissarily florescence. It's really as simple as that.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Google fluorescent rocks. Florescence is not necessarily bioluminescence, nor is bioluminescence neccissarily florescence. It's really as simple as that.
Correct, doesn't have to be, but GFP is bioluminescent, really that simple. The 'P' in GFP stands for protein, ya know.
Did you Google the mice?
Originally posted by Robtard
Correct, doesn't have to be, but GFP is bioluminescent, really that simple. The 'P' in GFP stands for protein, ya know.Did you Google the mice?
And the F stands for flourecence which is my point. It's flourescent not bioluminecent.
Anyway . . .
Bioluminescence Webpage: http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/~biolum/chem/
Bioluminescence is not the same as "fluorescence" or "phosphorescence".
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioluminescence
Bioluminescence is the production and emission of light by a living organism as the result of a chemical reaction during which chemical energy is converted to light energy.
HowStuffWorks: http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/bioluminescence3.htm
In general, bioluminescence involves the combination of two types of substances in a light-producing reaction.
Brittanica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/66087/bioluminescence
Bioluminescence results from a chemical reaction
Photobiology: http://www.photobiology.info/prev_mod33.htm
Optical phenomena *other* than bioluminescence . . . . fluorescence
Personally I think it's infinitely more likely that a couple reporters assigned to the mice thing didn't do enough research.
Originally posted by Robtard
It would be more than just a couple of reporters; it would include researchers too.I do concede though.
And, thanks, SC, for taking the time to explain that. I got busy at work.
Robtard, I know what you are trying to say and it is partially correct.
What you're thinking is probably a generic way to describe it which could be "biological luminescence" or something. "Bioluminescence" has been "taken" already and doesn't mean what a direct etymological interpretation would yield.
Also, a pool of proteins is not "life". We can synthesize proteins all sorts of ways, and it still is not life, in the classical/scientific sense. It is when those proteins are used in a recognizable lifeform that we call it a biological trait. I'm sure you know all of this already.