Talk:CH391L/S14/SelectableCounterselectable

Talk:CH391L/S14/SelectableCounterselectable

• --Mindy (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2014 (CST) I'm sure you are getting around to this, but the reference section needs descriptors under each entry. Also this might benefit from a brief history/context section. The introduction is very nice, the bold typeface helps organize it very well. Also the first image is very helpful as well.

• --Alejandro Gutierrez (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2014 (CST) I'm not sure if I just missed it, but maybe a brief description of what positive and negative selection are would be helpful. You first use those terms when you define dual selection, but I don't see a definition for those two terms specifically. I wasn't entirely positive what those phrases were referring to.

• --Ella Watkins (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2014 (CST) I don't know if "duel" should be spelled "dual," Also the section about counter selectable markers is good, but I can't quite seem to understand, are they literally inhibiting/introducing toxicity into cells so that only ones that are mutated can be selective? Maybe consider adding a tiny bit about it to elaborate and simplify.

• --Gabriel Suarez (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2014 (CST) I would just put the Flow Cytometer under a different heading such as "Screening equipment", and maybe add UV light.
• --Ajv684 (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2014 (CST)Structure wise I would try to make a more cohesive flow of the different sections, mostly the 2nd and 3rd section seem unrelated at first to a non-expert reader. Why is it important to talk about gene switches? Is it one of the most representative examples of selection and screening? How about the LuxR example? Also, the figure looks pixelated and distorted. Other than that I think you did a pretty good job.

• --Liz (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2014 (CST)I think it would be helpful to have a short paragraph at the start to introduce what this is and why people use it (even a simple cartoon?). It might just be a rearrangement (because you do define the purpose towards the top), but maybe separate it even from your definition of selectable vs counterselectable because it seems a tier up from that. Another reorder- maybe move dual selection below counter selection since you haven't really formed the idea of positive and negative selection yet. It might be a good idea to put positive/negative in the definition of selection/counterselection to emphasize that connection. Perhaps the first heading should be "Types of Genetic Markers" and then I agree with Gabo that you could move the Flow Cytometry to a new Screening section, and explain how selection/screening is achieved. Transition to describing the paper could be better. Riboswitches= genetic traits? Not sure at all about your description of the paper. May want to define some terms (here as well as in galK section... ie what do each of these markers do/what is sacB?) or put in some context for us- like you do for LuxR paper.