But if people really feel strongly about it, so be it, would be a shame though.
Biologically ontologies (e.g. Gene Ontology - GO) are practically very much relevant. I make use of it almost on a weekly basis. We work with large information sets of gene and protein expression and without GO and the GO-related software it would virtually be impossible to analyse the data. GO is of course not perfect and it is constantly being improved and is intrinsically relevant to many areas of the biological sciences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysics also mentions it as a branch of astronomy. (Again with the caveat that Wikipedia is not the source of absolute facts or definitions)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_sciences Also lists astronomy under natural sciences. First, in fact.
So y'all need to hide yo uzis, hide yo assault rifles and hide yo bazookas 'cos they disarmin' everybody out here!
I just want to avoid arguments that stem from "why's" which don't have answers that can be scientifically reasoned.
PA-824 Kills Nonreplicating Mycobacterium tuberculosis by Intracellular NO Release
The mechanism of action of PA-824
Have they discovered the specific protein[s] it binds to that are relevant to its activity? Any resolved crystal structures so far?
EDIT: Ooh, found it 3R5R
I am sure we can get people here involved to find a more potent South African analogs...using freely available computational chemistry software ...
Last edited by Techne; 06-08-2012 at 09:57 AM.
I doubt that