Difference between revisions of "Talk:CH391L/S14/Gibson Assembly"

From SynBioCyc
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
----
 
----
--[[User:Dennis Mishler|Dennis Mishler]] ([[User talk:Dennis Mishler|talk]]) 07:47, 10 February 2014 (CST)
+
--[[User:Dennis Mishler|Dennis Mishler]] ([[User talk:Dennis Mishler|talk]]) 07:49, 10 February 2014 (CST)
  
'''Introduction and background material:'''
 
The introduction was very well put and concise. It defined the terms very plainly and did a good job of keeping everything simple. It would be helpful to define “minimal genome” though, as a reader who is not familiar with the concept of a synthetic genome may not know what a minimal genome is. I am also slightly confused as to what the phrase “existing works have been proofs of concepts,” maybe a second paragraph that expands on what are the concepts are and how synthetic genomes have proved these concepts would be helpful.
 
  
The history section also does a good job at being concise. Understandably the history of Synthetic Genomes is not very long as it is a fairly new concept.
 
 
'''Methods and main body/concepts:'''
 
 
The methods and main body paragraphs were well worded and easily understood. There was some mixing of topics more related to “future directions” then the main body, however that is probably best as the field is very new and the main focus should be on where it is going.
 
 
One critique I do have is that there is some repetition and overlap between the “Technology” section and the “Early Work” section.
 
 
'''Relation to iGEM and future directions:'''
 
A good portion of each section in the Wikipedia page talks about the future, and the “Future” section of the article repeats what is already said in the introduction. If it were not a requirement by the assignment to have a future section, I would recommend deleting the section, as it is somewhat unnecessary for this article (given the amount the future is talked about in the previous sections).
 
 
The iGEM section was quite brief, and perhaps talking more about those projects would benefit future UT iGEM projects as they could build upon those concepts. Although these projects do not seem ground breaking, perhaps a sentence or two earlier in the paper about how iGEM teams are striving towards achieving a minimal genome would be appropriate.
 
 
'''Figures, Figure legends, and citations:'''
 
There are few figures at the beginning of the article, but there is no real need for there to be any as there are not any concepts that require any visual aids. The ones used in the early work and synthia section were well placed and tied everything together.
 
 
In addition to mentioning the people involved in certain ground breaking experiments, I would suggest having more footnote citations, as the first three and last two sections of the article don’t have any.
 
  
 
----
 
----

Revision as of 13:49, 10 February 2014

  • --Ella Watkins (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2014 (CST) I would really like to see some of the illustrations that you had to go along with your wiki. Your presentation was amazing and I really think that the illustrations helped me visualize the concept a lot better. Also in backgrounds: maybe elaborate a tiny bit on why they chose T5, the exonuclease that is unstable at higher temperatures. In your presentation you did a good job telling us it was chosen so that the temperature could be raised and the T5 would no longer function. In the wiki, it mentions that it is not thermostable, but doesn't really tell why.
    • --Dennis Mishler (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2014 (CST) I completely agree with Ella on the figures/illustrations. You can probably just adapt the figures from your presentation. Visual representation will greatly increase the ability of other to read and understand your wiki page.
  • --drewtack (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2014 (CST)It is quite well explained. Might I suggest mentions how it has been useful in synthetic genome assembly. You could use the mouse mitochondria paper, which you mentioned in your presentation, as well as the Mycoplasma mycoides paper to show examples where Gibson Assembly has been utilized in mainstream research. Additionally, you only have one listed source, which is not a big deal, but you also don't have many links to other cites in your wiki, which i think would be helpful. I'm all for those external links, wiki is like the thoughtweb of the internet.
  • --Jordan Monk (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2014 (CST) Thanks for the input and kind words, guys. Formatting and fleshing out the wiki that's up there now was an afterthought at the time I was turning it in because I was short for time and wanted to be sure that the presentation was ready first and foremost. Additionally, I wanted a decent manuscript of sorts for the text of the article at the very least. Obviously, the figures that I put together for the presentation should be on the wiki in some form, but adapting 30+ powerpoint slides to one or a handful of images would take some time and thought. Ideally, I would like to just format the slides into a .gif file or html5 movie that could loop somewhere on the page in an appropriate size and rate of play. I will also certainly add in something more about applications, sources and links.
  • --Chen-Hsun Tsai (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2014 (CST) The content is very informative and make the complicate process easy to understand. However, for someone who didn't go to the presentation, they might not be able to digest everything without difficulty. An obvious way to improve this is to put some figures to show the critical steps, such as back chewing and primer designing.
  • --Alejandro Gutierrez (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2014 (CST) I don't know how necessary this is, but since the recipe is there, some indication of what the different parts (such as the Taq DNA polymerase or T5 exonuclease) of the solution are or what they do in the reaction may be useful. The different enzymes and solutions are mentioned in the method section, but their purpose is not explicitly stated. It may be helpful to readers who don't know as much about biological laboratory tools and techniques.
  • --Gabriel Suarez (talk) 2:20, 7 February 2014 (CST) Very clean and well written! Yup, like said already...some images would be great (I understand the struggle)...and I'll add, some more key links here and there would make it all more resourceful.



--Dennis Mishler (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2014 (CST)