I just failed to realise pAP3::GUS is a transcriptional fusion reporter and therefore only expresses if and only if there is transcriptional activity of its promotor (hence pAP3); thus 35S driven expression of the same protein would not necessarily result in GUS activity, unless shit exists to activate it, including itself, if it is thus inclined. Should I take a break from my slides and go home now?
(this is for a class. Will never look at goddamn flowers the same way every again. I hate you, ABC genes. Past 3am the morning a talk is due about them anyway...)
PISTEFUCKINGLATTA*! SEPALLATA! (those look really scary about now...)
Also, Nature papers become unbearably dense when you have to present about every single fucking sentence in them...
*grumble grumble*
*Does the FUCKING insertion have to be italicised too? What do gene naming conventions say about expletive inclusions?
PS: For those of you who have absolutely no fucking clue what I just rambled on about -- lucky bastards!!!
I *liked* ABC genes...they made sense, and mutant flowers look cool without making you feel guilty about the 'mutant' part.
ReplyDeleteGet some sleep! And good luck with work.
I enjoy it too, just not at 5 in the morning the day of a presentation!
ReplyDeleteTalk went ok methinks. The instructors are known for being harsh when it comes to science (ie, some grad students are terrified of them), and didn't pelt us with too many questions or other interruptions, which should hopefully be a somewhat good sign...
Maybe I should blog about it, if anyone's interested in floral development...?