| dc.description.defence | <p>The defense was held in hybrid form with one member of the committe online via Zoom. Commitee: doc. Mgr. Tomáš Doležal, Ph.D. - head, RNDr. Pavel Doležal, Ph.D. - BIOCEV, prof. Ing. Miroslav Oborník and <a data-ved="2ahUKEwiL-9ukm9T_AhU0nf0HHYHsCZIQFnoECBIQAQ" href="https://prf.osu.cz/marek-elias/20385/" jsaction="rcuQ6b:npT2md" jscontroller="M9mgyc" jsname="qOiK6e" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://prf.osu.cz/marek-elias/20385/&ved=2ahUKEwiL-9ukm9T_AhU0nf0HHYHsCZIQFnoECBIQAQ" style="color: rgb(26, 13, 171); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); outline: 0px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Prof. Mgr. Marek Eliáš, Ph.D.</a> (University of Ostrava, ONLINE via Zoom). Reviewers: Dr. Estienne Swart (Max Planck Institute for Biology, Tübingen, Germany) - not present, Prof. Jason Chin, Ph.D. - University of Cambridge - present in person.</p>
<p>1. Mentor Julius Lukeš read his statement to introduce Ambar.</p>
<p>2. Ambar presented in ca. 30 min.</p>
<p>3. Prof. Chin read his report and discussed with Ambar. It was a very high-level of discussion, some parts were not perfectly clarified but Prof Chin appreciated the discussion very much:</p>
<p><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Q: sensitivity and precision of Ms analysis of tRNA very detailed technical discussion - with help of Valasek & Paris, issue was clarified.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Q: What was measured in Fig IE? A: partially answered </span></p>
<p><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Q: Fidelity of tRNAs. A: partially answered</span></p>
<p>4. T. Dolezal read the review of the absent reviewer E. Swart and asked to clarify selected questions - they were all; answered, especially part regarding the critical commentary of E. Swart to their Nature paper.</p>
<p>5. Discussion with the committee - again high-level, well anwered.</p>
<p>6. 2 questions from audience.</p>
<p>7. After almost 2,5 hours - non-public part evaluation by the committee - the defense was highly appreciated.</p>
<p>8. Voting - 5 valid votes (3 in presence, 2 ONLINE via MS Forms) - all 5 for PASSED.</p>
<p> </p> | cze |
