Difference between revisions of "Talk:CH391L/S14/Genome Synthesis"

Revision as of 16:56, 7 February 2014

• --Mindy (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2014 (CST) The spacing and arrangement of images and text is very asthetically pleasing. The images are small but obviously they can be enlarged so to save space leaving them that size is probably optimal. The only thought I had was perhaps indicating (in just a couple words as part of the sentence) what a minimal genome is in your intro in case readers don't know. Everything is very well written and looks great, so that would be my only suggestion.

• --Ella Watkins (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2014 (CST) Not sure if supposed to say "assembly" rather than "assemble" in technology section on fifth row down... just a typo? Also label the last figure, where does it go with? And if you can fix the "1. that goes under the 2." in the early work section and make it a bullet, that would make it easier to read. Sorry to nitpick, your wiki is just so good I can't see anything else!
  • --drewtack (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2014 (CST)Oh stop it you're making me blush! I agree with all three of your suggestions and have made, in my opinion, appropriate adjustments. Thanks for the feedback.

• --Dennis Mishler (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2014 (CST)Drew, where did your first figure come from? And your 3rd figure? It also needs a legend.

• --Dennis Mishler (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2014 (CST) Drew, as Jeff mentioned in class, wasn't there an early study that synthesized the Polio genome? I would include a mention of this and relate it to "dual use" research... a topic which we will cover later in the semester.

• --Chen-Hsun Tsai (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2014 (CST) The overall content and structure of this wiki is good and easy to read. The figures are also very helpful. I also want to know more about the history, like did anyone do a pioneer work before 2008, or similar work but doesn't work that well? Also, you have mentioned there is a reproducible synthetic genome created, and I am very interested with that so it will be great if you can elaborate more.

• --Gabriel Suarez (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2014 (CST) Very nice layout! Under 'History', I guess the first functioning-reproducing synthetic cell deserves citation, that way those interested in knowing more can have easy access to that info. Also, when you mention Chew Back and Anneal Assembly, it is written as if these are different assembly techniques, but in essence it's all Gibson Assembly, and there are other assembly techs out there. Lastly, I'm not sure about the last statement "brought to life" in the 'Future' section about Mycoplasma laboritorium, I think it should be cleared that still the molecular machinery and chemical environment that would allow it to replicate would not be synthetic.

• --Liz (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2014 (CST) Overall, I really like the flow of the information you included. I think some of the ideas you present could be clearer if the sentences were cleaned up a bit, especially sentences with lots of commas (it's to its small genome size- sorry I'm horrible :) ) . I also think it would be helpful to define some of your terms or rearrange the order slightly. For example, you present some of the problems with the technology before you explain the specific techniques. I think it would be better to move those issues below the explanation of the work- then it is more obvious how those problems affect/ are addressed by the technique. Also, (as another example) I'm not familiar with amber stop codon- maybe a link to a definition would help. I think your History section could benefit from links right there in the text to the original papers you mention. (And what was a quick main difference between those two papers?).