Talk:CH391L/S14/MAGE
- --Dennis Mishler (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2014 (CDT) Jordan, Files and figures aren't functioning properly. If you are unsure about how to fix this, look at the code for some of the other wiki pages. If you still have questions, let me know. We should make sure you know how to do this (not only for the class).
- --Dennis Mishler (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2014 (CDT)Overall, a very nice page with a lot of useful information. I will leave it to others to critique the rest of the material.
--Chen-Hsun Tsai (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2014 (CDT) I think this wiki page is well written and has covered most of the content that people interested. But it seems like you have few paragraphs missed from the page? Like "Automation" and "De-extinction".
--Liz (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2014 (CDT)Very well-written. Figures, which I think would be really helpful, are still not coming through. I know I have less biology background than others in the class might, but I got a little lost when you explained the basics of the MAGE technique. This may be cleared up by one of your figures, but I didn't really follow how the insertion or deletion events actually occur in the oligo-mediated allelic replacement- a link to a wiki page/more info would suffice as well. Also noticing you have a Mulitplex typo in the top heading. For the lycopene pathway, I would move the first sentence/idea from DXP pathway into the little intro above- just get across the idea this is great MAGE target while defining lycopene, then get into the nitty-gritty below (personal preference). Same comments as Chen for Automation and De-extinction. For the citations, only references 1 and 4 are showing up, though I see at least 6 are cited in-article. The layout progresses through ideas very naturally. Only suggestion would be to get into the MAGE basic ideas a little more. Also, this method seems really elegant and efficient- how does this compare to other efforts to achieve the same goal? Some sentence (or more?) to put in in context might emphasize how great this is. Good job!
--Alejandro Gutierrez (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2014 (CDT) I agree with Liz that the layout flows very naturally. Aside from the comments above, I would mainly like to know about any other specific applications of MAGE. You mention other projects that the Church group have used it for; maybe just listing a few of those would be nice. I don't know exactly how much this technique has been used, but more examples would help give a feel for what sorts of projects MAGE would be useful for.
--Ella Watkins (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2014 (CDT) Keep in mind that you need 10 sources, and that is a requirement for the rubric. Otherwise, a really informative, very well written wiki!
- --Mindy (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2014 (CDT) This article is very thorough and has a lot of useful information :) The only things I would comment on are: First, a small simple diagram at/near te beginning might help the reader get a better overall view of the topic before diving in. Second, the images that you have already are just links with no thumbnails- did you intend for them to be that way? They might break up the text better if they were thumbnails. Last, as Ella mentioned it appears you have more than 2 sources because it goes from 1 to 4, but perhaps the code is typed wrong so they aren't showing up? Great job otherwise.
--Gabo Suarez (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2014 (CDT) When defining the acronym, capitalize "Multiplex Automated Genome Engineering"? I would have somehow defined MAGE initially as a technique dependent on Lambda Red Bacteriophage proteins. The topic of Lycopene production kind of comes in out of nowhere and maybe should have been merged with DXP pathway. Some links on the iGEM part would have been nice. Well written overall!
Jorge Vazquez (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2014 (CDT) This is a very well-written wiki article overall. It has lots of very useful information and gives a complete panorama of what this technique is and how it can be used. Very comprenhensive. I spotted two minor issues: figures and references. None of the figures work and this is indispensable to better explain MAGE. In the case of the references you have up to 6 and you only show 2 in the references section.
--drewtack (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2014 (CDT)So images are clearly the major problem, as mentioned above. Also, I think the big thing that is missing is some potential crazy applications and future applications.
--Dennis Mishler (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2014 (CDT) Nathan's Critique
Overall Format and structure: Nice layout, practical and generally easy to follow. There are many concepts discussed, however, that would be easier to understand with figures. This is probably a simple mistake on the coding source of the page. Also, the section titled "automation" seems to be missing on this wiki. One other minor detail is the lack of flow from the "measuring sequence diversity rate" to the "lycopene production" sections.
Introduction and background material: The introductions into both MAGE and CAGE were succinct and precise. They gave a clear overview of the topics that were to be discussed in greater detail later in the wiki.
Methods and main body/concepts: The description of how MAGE works was quite good. Perhaps going into more detail about how the process in which oligos are designed could be a benefit. There are many references to how a well-defined sequence is important for the process of MAGE, but not much detail explaining why it is so. Overall, the description about CAGE was also quite good. However, the second to last sentence in the "Codon Modification Strategy" is unclear to me. It may need to be edited and rewritten. Also, for the Amberless E.Coli, haven't they already produced a cell that successfully replaced all of its amber stop codons? Overall, it was a great page filled with a lot of information.
Relation to iGEM and future directions: I found it interesting that MAGE could not be carried out without the automated device. However, there wasn't much information on the future direction of MAGE and CAGE. There seems to be a heading titled "de-extinction" that you left blank. I remember you mentioning it during your presentation, so I hope to see it posted on this wiki soon.
Figures, Figure legends, and citations: None of the figures are currently working. Also, many of the citations appear to be missing as well.
