Ahh, the new kkollins! Often in error, never in doubt!
After some "clever" gobbledigook to show his contempt for the question,
our new neuroscience expert tells us CCK is not relevant to
neuroscience. I'm not sure, but I THINK I saw a few poster
presentations on CCK at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in LA last
November (my presentation was on a different topic and I do not try to
keep up with the CCK lit). In any case, CCK is yet another substance
found first in the gut or other nonbrain tissues (cf. serotonin,
substance P, histamine, etc.) and later found to have a significant
role in the brain.
I think it is clear who belongs in a different newsgroup...
F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
New York Neuropsychology Group
In <369AAC11.75513797 at ix.netcom.com> Richard Sargent
<dsargent at ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>>>ricyoung at iupui.edu wrote:
>>> Could anyone tell me what newsgroup I should direct this question
to, or
>> maybe someone here knows....
>> Is porcine cholecystokinin exactly structurally analogous to human
CCK?
>>Actually, PCCK has an expansive effect on porcine organelles while its
>humano-homologue is strictly contractive to the human gallbladder.
>>> Would porcine cholecystokinin become antigenic after intramuscular
>> administration?
>>It depends on your inertial reference frame. A tissue biopsy may be
>conclusive as regards the effects of PCCK.
>>> If so, is there a comercially available recombinant CCK>?
>>Personally, I wouldn't invest in PCCK if I were you. However, the
HCCK can
>be solenized into iguano-cholecystokinin and recombined with
multicultural RNA
>strands independent of mitochondrial abiogenesis.
>>>> andy young
>>>>ricyoung at ruby.iupui.edu>> To answer your question about what would be the choice newsgroup for
a post
>of this sort, this definitely would not be material for a neuroscience
>newsgroup. Look for a biology newsgroup.
>>Pete Sargent
>