neuroscience - Long-term-potentiation and memory. Where do we stand?

Really good questions. As the guy who brought up LTP/LTD in the question you referenced, I thought I would weigh in.

There is the traditional definition of LTP/LTD as an increased/decreased synaptic efficacy at a single synapse or in a single cell. As you've noted, this is unlikely to be the only phenomena underlying memory and sometimes it's hard to see how some of these mechanisms can result in memory on behavioral timescales.

Let me propose, therefore, that the term long-term plasticity is more relevant these days, as it can refer to a variety of mechanisms that relate to the ability of the nervous system to change in stable ways over time. Physiological mechanisms involving changes in protein expression include traditional LTP/LTD at single synapses, but also homeostatic plasticity and long-term changes in intrinsic excitability where the tendency of the cell to fire changes independent of changes in synaptic weighting. Some structural mechanisms include the growth of new synapses, new spines, and new neurons--synaptogenesis, spinogenesis, and neurogenesis.

In the end, it is all of these mechanisms (and probably more) at play. Note, for instance, that the plasticity may move through structural changes in the system. This means that the lifetime of LTP in one cell or at one synapse does not necessarily have to be the same as the lifetime of the memory itself. All that said, I think all plasticity mechanisms ultimately reduce down to a change in the ability of an input to elicit an action potential somewhere in the brain (known as EPSP-spike coupling). This is likely to be the basic underlying mechanism of memory.

How To Avoid Macro-Evolution Confusion?

I regularly encounter students who believe humans came from amoebas and when asked why they often say Macro-Evolution has been scientifically proven.

Macro-evolution is defined as evolution at or above the species level, which leads to the problem: Scientific evidence does exist for speciation at the Biological Species Concept (BSC) level, but not for all species concepts and only if a helpful definition is employed. Lions and tigers are considered different species and have been know to reproduce--sometimes with fertile offspring. Therefore, what benefits are there to such a broad category as macro-evolution?

The distinction between lions and tigers is so much smaller than feathered vs. scaled creatures! Surely the current definition of macro-evolution is overly broad and confusing to newcomers. Only the fuzzy edge of the macro-evolution definition has been proven. Proving that 1 inch of a yardstick exists does not prove that the rest does. There is a distinct lack of rigor to the statement that "macro-evolution has been scientifically proven."

Surely the definition of macro-evolution could be chopped in half with the goal of distinguishing between relatively trivial changes (Lion vs. Tiger, but beyond micro-evolution) and relatively non-trivial distinctions (either at and above the genus or the family level). The "trivial" changes could be termed "Middle Evolution" and work something like this:

1.) Middle evolution: evolution at or above the species level, but below the family level.

2.) Macro evolution: evolution at or above the family level.

Substitute the word genus for family in the above definitions if that seems better. I admit that line would be somewhat arbitrary, but would not the term "Middle Evolution" be informative?

homework - Why are Birds and Reptiles with abundant yolk sac polyspermic?

I was given an explanation that birds and reptiles are polyspermic because they have an abundant yolk sac. But how does it explain the thing?

Chicken as an adult is not using in my opinion yolk as an energy source.
Yolk is used during embryogenesis as the primary energy source with blastula and gastrula -stages and during organogenesis, since the embryo needs proteins and energy somewhere.

How does abundant yolk sac make birds and reptiles polyspermic?

microbiology - Have there been any positive public health effects due to UV lights?

There have been some studies regarding the use of intensive UV light installations in surgical wards or other settings as a anti-microbial tool. Generally speaking, these are part of a general interest in non-cleaning based anti-microbials in hospitals, such as UV light, O3-based machines, and copper/silver coated surfaces.

The answer to your question will depend on what you consider "lasting" and "significant". They're a relatively new technology, and haven't had a huge penetration into the market yet, so the only evidence you're likely to find is hospital-sized non-randomized trials.

So basically, the answer to your question, as I read it, is "No, but..."

There hasn't been an opportunity for these technologies to show any sort of lasting, significant reduction in hospital acquired infections. But there is some promise that these types of technologies, and those like them, may help reduce the burden of infections when they're used appropriately. The current state of research is figuring out just how workable they are, how to best use them, and what they can and cannot be expected to do. That kind of evaluation is actually what I'm doing as part of my dissertation work, though my focus is on the general concept, rather than a specific device.

Taxonomy for plasmids - Biology

Not sure if generalized plasmid taxonomy is going to be relevant any longer. A lot of these old names were created before the exact sequence and function of the various DNA sequences were known. This is becoming especially true as synthetic biology allows us to mix and match parts of plasmids at will. If you want to dig through a lot of the old plasmid classification papers, a lot of them are published before 1980.

Back then I'd imagine conversations went more: "oh look, I found an R plasmid conferring ampicillin resistance", instead our more modern understanding: "oh, I have a plasmid conferring ampR via bla "

That being said, I think the more specific / specialized plasmid classifications will stick around for a while as they confer a lot of domain specific meaning. Check out Ti and Ri plamids which have very specific meanings in plant pathogens and are used in the genetic engineering of them. You'll notice that the classification for these plasmids comes from a lot more than a single gene.

There have been some modern attempts to classify plasmids, but rely a lot more on the structure / lineage of the plasmid rather than the payload genes (replication origin, size, etc.). Check out [1] for an example.

[1] Wang, et. al. 2009. Plasmid.