Talk:CH391L/S13/Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction - Revision history

Kevin Baldridge at 20:18, 25 February 2013

2013-02-25T20:18:28Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 20:18, 25 February 2013
Line 43:		Line 43:
	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 20:59, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':What would be an interesting protein family tree to reconstruct? I feel like one would want to explore more than thermostability (esp. since there are some caveats to the reconstruction procedure where it may be making more consensus proteins than ancestral proteins).		**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 20:59, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':What would be an interesting protein family tree to reconstruct? I feel like one would want to explore more than thermostability (esp. since there are some caveats to the reconstruction procedure where it may be making more consensus proteins than ancestral proteins).
	*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:51, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Is "RetroBioBricks" too hard to say?		*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:51, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Is "RetroBioBricks" too hard to say?
		+	*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 15:18, 25 February 2013 (EST)''':There were ideas thrown about for using reconstruction of more thermostable antibiotic resistance genes as a tool in synthetic biology?

Aurko Dasgupta: /* Methods */

2013-02-25T05:36:12Z

Methods

←Older revision		Revision as of 05:36, 25 February 2013
Line 4:		Line 4:
	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 21:26, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':The idea, if not the algorithms, were probably fairly close to what goes on today.		**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 21:26, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':The idea, if not the algorithms, were probably fairly close to what goes on today.
	*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:00, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':How do the methods here compare with those used for phylogenetic placement based on ribosomal RNA sequences?		*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:00, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':How do the methods here compare with those used for phylogenetic placement based on ribosomal RNA sequences?
-	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 21:26, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':Pretty much the same in theory.	+	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 21:26, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':Pretty much the same in theory.
		+	**'''[[User:Aurko Dasgupta\|Aurko Dasgupta]] 00:36, 25 February 2013 (EST)''': The techniques used to estimate the ancestral sequences are essentially the same. However, most protein sequences are nowhere near as conserved as ribosomal sequences.

	== Ancestral Organism Resurrection?==		== Ancestral Organism Resurrection?==

Jeffrey E. Barrick: /* Caveats and Limitations */

2013-02-25T02:28:07Z

Caveats and Limitations

←Older revision		Revision as of 02:28, 25 February 2013
Line 21:		Line 21:
	**'''[[User:Aurko Dasgupta\|Aurko Dasgupta]] 23:16, 23 February 2013 (EST)''': I have yet to find any specifics on how post-translational modification could affect final protein specificity. That said, I think it's an extremely pertinent point, and will keep looking for something that answers this.		**'''[[User:Aurko Dasgupta\|Aurko Dasgupta]] 23:16, 23 February 2013 (EST)''': I have yet to find any specifics on how post-translational modification could affect final protein specificity. That said, I think it's an extremely pertinent point, and will keep looking for something that answers this.
	*'''[[User:Siddharth Das\|Siddharth Das]] 19:24, 19 February 2012(EST)''': With even the most powerful statistics tools and rigorous mathematics, how useful is this technology in terms of evolutionary studies, since it seems the genes themselves are inaccurate representations (varying mutation rate for the past million year, etc)? Furthermore, is it safe to assume that the genetic code was as conserved as it is today? There are exceptions even now; for example, in the fungus Candida, CUG codes for serine instead of leucine. On a different note, the wiki is very well organized.		*'''[[User:Siddharth Das\|Siddharth Das]] 19:24, 19 February 2012(EST)''': With even the most powerful statistics tools and rigorous mathematics, how useful is this technology in terms of evolutionary studies, since it seems the genes themselves are inaccurate representations (varying mutation rate for the past million year, etc)? Furthermore, is it safe to assume that the genetic code was as conserved as it is today? There are exceptions even now; for example, in the fungus Candida, CUG codes for serine instead of leucine. On a different note, the wiki is very well organized.
-	*There's a nice study where they show that the methods used to reconstruct the ancestral sequences (whether parsimony or maximum likelihood) tend to overestimate the thermal stability of the reconstructed proteins because they favor "consensus" proteins.	+	*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 21:28, 24 February 2013 (EST)''': There's a nice study where they show that the methods used to reconstruct the ancestral sequences (whether parsimony or maximum likelihood) tend to overestimate the thermal stability of the reconstructed proteins because they favor "consensus" proteins. [http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.0020069 Link]
-	*'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:39, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':One thing that seems to be missing in most topics currently is technical limitation to approaches like this. i.e. Do you need 2 sequences of a gene/protein or 10 to make it work.	+	*'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:39, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': One thing that seems to be missing in most topics currently is technical limitation to approaches like this. i.e. Do you need 2 sequences of a gene/protein or 10 to make it work.

	== Content and Formatting ==		== Content and Formatting ==

Jeffrey E. Barrick at 02:26, 25 February 2013

2013-02-25T02:26:07Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 02:26, 25 February 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 16:59, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': Remove the cost and methods of gene synthesis (or just reference the dna assembly section we've already gone over). Expand the codon optimization section (unless this fits better in somewhere else).	+	== Methods ==
-		+
	*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 16:59, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': How does Pauling's proposal for ancestral gene construction relate to the actual discovery of DNA structure?		*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 16:59, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': How does Pauling's proposal for ancestral gene construction relate to the actual discovery of DNA structure?
-		+	**'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 13:21, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': The Pauling and Zuckerkandl paper came out when the only protein sequence information we had came from limited peptide sequencing methods like Edman degradation (N-terminal sequencing). You might add something about the shift to using DNA or RNA sequences to infer protein sequence once techniques like Maxam-Gilbert and Sanger sequencing showed up in the '70s.
-	*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 13:21, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': The Pauling and Zuckerkandl paper came out when the only protein sequence information we had came from limited peptide sequencing methods like Edman degradation (N-terminal sequencing). You might add something about the shift to using DNA or RNA sequences to infer protein sequence once techniques like Maxam-Gilbert and Sanger sequencing showed up in the '70s.	+	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 21:26, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':The idea, if not the algorithms, were probably fairly close to what goes on today.
-		+
	*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:00, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':How do the methods here compare with those used for phylogenetic placement based on ribosomal RNA sequences?		*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:00, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':How do the methods here compare with those used for phylogenetic placement based on ribosomal RNA sequences?
		+	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 21:26, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':Pretty much the same in theory.

-	*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 17:06, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': Can you include a little more detail in your figures? ~~At least give some detail about the methods used to determine time and explain the acronyms (e.g. PNCA, GNCA, etc).~~	+	== Ancestral Organism Resurrection?==
-	**'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:36, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Adding to Gabriel's comment I already did some editing, but it would be better if you either define the acronyms and then use them or keep using the corresponding terminology.	+
	*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 17:06, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': What's the oldest intact DNA? What's the oldest speciesn being sequenced today?		*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 17:06, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': What's the oldest intact DNA? What's the oldest speciesn being sequenced today?
	**'''[[User:Catherine I. Mortensen\|Catherine I. Mortensen]] 23:19, 20 February 2013 (EST)''': I'm not sure what the oldest intact DNA is but I did find an article about the oldest living relative to eukaryotes. It's protozoan that is thought to have evolved one billion years ago. Apparently it doesn't fit into any specific kingdom. http://www.livescience.com/19955-ancient-protist-kingdom.html		**'''[[User:Catherine I. Mortensen\|Catherine I. Mortensen]] 23:19, 20 February 2013 (EST)''': I'm not sure what the oldest intact DNA is but I did find an article about the oldest living relative to eukaryotes. It's protozoan that is thought to have evolved one billion years ago. Apparently it doesn't fit into any specific kingdom. http://www.livescience.com/19955-ancient-protist-kingdom.html
Line 18:		Line 16:
	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:30, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':We could call that topic '''Ancestral organism resurrection'''. It could also talk about synthesizing the 1918 Spanish flu. Here's a [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819212/ review] that might help with that topic.		**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:30, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':We could call that topic '''Ancestral organism resurrection'''. It could also talk about synthesizing the 1918 Spanish flu. Here's a [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819212/ review] that might help with that topic.
	**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 21:57, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': I always thought the coolest and somewhat plausible project for an animal was the Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine), A museum was attempting to do it in Australia. That project was closed down but many more seemed to have sprung up. A recent paper about such things from a UT proff http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002240		**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 21:57, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': I always thought the coolest and somewhat plausible project for an animal was the Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine), A museum was attempting to do it in Australia. That project was closed down but many more seemed to have sprung up. A recent paper about such things from a UT proff http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002240
		+
		+	== Caveats and Limitations ==
	*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:10, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':On the topic of general to specific evolution, is there any consideration for hypermodified amino acids? Maybe the ancient proteins had post-translational modifications in the proteins that adjusted the specificity, but we don't know about it from the genetic sequence for the protein.		*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:10, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':On the topic of general to specific evolution, is there any consideration for hypermodified amino acids? Maybe the ancient proteins had post-translational modifications in the proteins that adjusted the specificity, but we don't know about it from the genetic sequence for the protein.
	**'''[[User:Aurko Dasgupta\|Aurko Dasgupta]] 23:16, 23 February 2013 (EST)''': I have yet to find any specifics on how post-translational modification could affect final protein specificity. That said, I think it's an extremely pertinent point, and will keep looking for something that answers this.		**'''[[User:Aurko Dasgupta\|Aurko Dasgupta]] 23:16, 23 February 2013 (EST)''': I have yet to find any specifics on how post-translational modification could affect final protein specificity. That said, I think it's an extremely pertinent point, and will keep looking for something that answers this.
		+	*'''[[User:Siddharth Das\|Siddharth Das]] 19:24, 19 February 2012(EST)''': With even the most powerful statistics tools and rigorous mathematics, how useful is this technology in terms of evolutionary studies, since it seems the genes themselves are inaccurate representations (varying mutation rate for the past million year, etc)? Furthermore, is it safe to assume that the genetic code was as conserved as it is today? There are exceptions even now; for example, in the fungus Candida, CUG codes for serine instead of leucine. On a different note, the wiki is very well organized.
		+	*There's a nice study where they show that the methods used to reconstruct the ancestral sequences (whether parsimony or maximum likelihood) tend to overestimate the thermal stability of the reconstructed proteins because they favor "consensus" proteins.
		+	*'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:39, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':One thing that seems to be missing in most topics currently is technical limitation to approaches like this. i.e. Do you need 2 sequences of a gene/protein or 10 to make it work.

		+	== Content and Formatting ==
		+	*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 17:06, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': Can you include a little more detail in your figures? At least give some detail about the methods used to determine time and explain the acronyms (e.g. PNCA, GNCA, etc).
		+	**'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:36, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Adding to Gabriel's comment I already did some editing, but it would be better if you either define the acronyms and then use them or keep using the corresponding terminology.
		+	*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 16:59, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': Remove the cost and methods of gene synthesis (or just reference the dna assembly section we've already gone over). Expand the codon optimization section (unless this fits better in somewhere else).
	*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 17:16, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':Add a picture of the fluorescent proteins (take one from [http://www.bio.utexas.edu/research/matz_lab/matzlab/Welcome.html Matz Lab website]?		*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 17:16, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':Add a picture of the fluorescent proteins (take one from [http://www.bio.utexas.edu/research/matz_lab/matzlab/Welcome.html Matz Lab website]?
	**'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:36, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':Expanding on this, a visual on how the process is carried (a pipeline image) would be more useful for the reader.		**'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:36, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':Expanding on this, a visual on how the process is carried (a pipeline image) would be more useful for the reader.
		+	*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:37, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':Please add the titles of papers in the bibliography on your own as is done in other topics. You might also send feedback to OWW to tell them the bibio extension is broken to see if someday they will fix it.

		+	==Reconstruction of co-evolution==
	*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 17:20, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': From Andre: Discussion of Red Queen hypothesis and how ancestral gene reconstruction can show us evolution of interactions between host and virus proteins.		*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 17:20, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': From Andre: Discussion of Red Queen hypothesis and how ancestral gene reconstruction can show us evolution of interactions between host and virus proteins.
	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:30, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':If it's specific proteins I'd put it in this topic. If it's whole viruses, I'd kick to it a whole-organism topic.		**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:30, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':If it's specific proteins I'd put it in this topic. If it's whole viruses, I'd kick to it a whole-organism topic.
-
-	*'''[[User:Siddharth Das\|Siddharth Das]] 19:24, 19 February 2012(EST)''': With even the most powerful statistics tools and rigorous mathematics, how useful is this technology in terms of evolutionary studies, since it seems the genes themselves are inaccurate representations (varying mutation rate for the past million year, etc)? Furthermore, is it safe to assume that the genetic code was as conserved as it is today? There are exceptions even now; for example, in the fungus Candida, CUG codes for serine instead of leucine. On a different note, the wiki is very well organized.
-
-	*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:37, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':Please add the titles of papers in the bibliography on your own as is done in other topics. You might also send feedback to OWW to tell them the bibio extension is broken to see if someday they will fix it.

	== iGEM team connection ==		== iGEM team connection ==
Line 37:		Line 42:
	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 20:59, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':What would be an interesting protein family tree to reconstruct? I feel like one would want to explore more than thermostability (esp. since there are some caveats to the reconstruction procedure where it may be making more consensus proteins than ancestral proteins).		**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 20:59, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':What would be an interesting protein family tree to reconstruct? I feel like one would want to explore more than thermostability (esp. since there are some caveats to the reconstruction procedure where it may be making more consensus proteins than ancestral proteins).
	*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:51, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Is "RetroBioBricks" too hard to say?		*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:51, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Is "RetroBioBricks" too hard to say?
-
-	~~== Limitations ==~~
-	*'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:39, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':One thing that seems to be missing in most topics currently is technical limitation to approaches like this. i.e. Do you need 2 sequences of a gene/protein or 10 to make it work.

Jeffrey E. Barrick at 01:59, 25 February 2013

2013-02-25T01:59:03Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:59, 25 February 2013
Line 31:		Line 31:
	*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:37, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':Please add the titles of papers in the bibliography on your own as is done in other topics. You might also send feedback to OWW to tell them the bibio extension is broken to see if someday they will fix it.		*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:37, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':Please add the titles of papers in the bibliography on your own as is done in other topics. You might also send feedback to OWW to tell them the bibio extension is broken to see if someday they will fix it.

		+	== iGEM team connection ==
	*'''[[User:Neil R Gottel\|Neil R Gottel]] 16:31, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':This seems to be a tricky topic to find a link to iGEM, since I'm not finding any teams who have incorporated this into their projects. Therefore, we should do it. It also has an obvious tie-in to BEACON (evolution of proteins!), so that makes it doubly worth pursuing. Since these analyses tend to give higher-temp versions of proteins, we could potentially use this as a starting point for making heat-stable versions of various biotech/industrial enzymes, then tweaking/evolving to increase efficiency. The actual goal is to make some sort of new protocol that others can follow, and therefore cite when we publish in Nature. Or Science, I'm not picky.		*'''[[User:Neil R Gottel\|Neil R Gottel]] 16:31, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':This seems to be a tricky topic to find a link to iGEM, since I'm not finding any teams who have incorporated this into their projects. Therefore, we should do it. It also has an obvious tie-in to BEACON (evolution of proteins!), so that makes it doubly worth pursuing. Since these analyses tend to give higher-temp versions of proteins, we could potentially use this as a starting point for making heat-stable versions of various biotech/industrial enzymes, then tweaking/evolving to increase efficiency. The actual goal is to make some sort of new protocol that others can follow, and therefore cite when we publish in Nature. Or Science, I'm not picky.
	**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 23:02, 21 February 201 3 (EST)''': I think this might be a good idea, generate some buzz		**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 23:02, 21 February 201 3 (EST)''': I think this might be a good idea, generate some buzz
	**'''[[User:Aurko Dasgupta\|Aurko Dasgupta]] 23:02, 23 February 2013 (EST)''': This is definitely something I'd support. The only thing is that we don't seem to have anyone with any background in sequence recontruction type stuff do we? If some grad student on campus works with this kind of thing, we should try to see if they'd be interested in advising anything done on a project involving the development of a functional reconstructed protein.		**'''[[User:Aurko Dasgupta\|Aurko Dasgupta]] 23:02, 23 February 2013 (EST)''': This is definitely something I'd support. The only thing is that we don't seem to have anyone with any background in sequence recontruction type stuff do we? If some grad student on campus works with this kind of thing, we should try to see if they'd be interested in advising anything done on a project involving the development of a functional reconstructed protein.
		+	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 20:59, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':What would be an interesting protein family tree to reconstruct? I feel like one would want to explore more than thermostability (esp. since there are some caveats to the reconstruction procedure where it may be making more consensus proteins than ancestral proteins).
	*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:51, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Is "RetroBioBricks" too hard to say?		*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:51, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Is "RetroBioBricks" too hard to say?
		+
		+	== Limitations ==
	*'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:39, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':One thing that seems to be missing in most topics currently is technical limitation to approaches like this. i.e. Do you need 2 sequences of a gene/protein or 10 to make it work.		*'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:39, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':One thing that seems to be missing in most topics currently is technical limitation to approaches like this. i.e. Do you need 2 sequences of a gene/protein or 10 to make it work.

Aurko Dasgupta at 04:16, 24 February 2013

2013-02-24T04:16:45Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 04:16, 24 February 2013
Line 19:		Line 19:
	**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 21:57, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': I always thought the coolest and somewhat plausible project for an animal was the Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine), A museum was attempting to do it in Australia. That project was closed down but many more seemed to have sprung up. A recent paper about such things from a UT proff http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002240		**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 21:57, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': I always thought the coolest and somewhat plausible project for an animal was the Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine), A museum was attempting to do it in Australia. That project was closed down but many more seemed to have sprung up. A recent paper about such things from a UT proff http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002240
	*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:10, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':On the topic of general to specific evolution, is there any consideration for hypermodified amino acids? Maybe the ancient proteins had post-translational modifications in the proteins that adjusted the specificity, but we don't know about it from the genetic sequence for the protein.		*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:10, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':On the topic of general to specific evolution, is there any consideration for hypermodified amino acids? Maybe the ancient proteins had post-translational modifications in the proteins that adjusted the specificity, but we don't know about it from the genetic sequence for the protein.
		+	**'''[[User:Aurko Dasgupta\|Aurko Dasgupta]] 23:16, 23 February 2013 (EST)''': I have yet to find any specifics on how post-translational modification could affect final protein specificity. That said, I think it's an extremely pertinent point, and will keep looking for something that answers this.

	*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 17:16, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':Add a picture of the fluorescent proteins (take one from [http://www.bio.utexas.edu/research/matz_lab/matzlab/Welcome.html Matz Lab website]?		*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 17:16, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':Add a picture of the fluorescent proteins (take one from [http://www.bio.utexas.edu/research/matz_lab/matzlab/Welcome.html Matz Lab website]?

Aurko Dasgupta at 04:02, 24 February 2013

2013-02-24T04:02:58Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 04:02, 24 February 2013
Line 31:		Line 31:

	*'''[[User:Neil R Gottel\|Neil R Gottel]] 16:31, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':This seems to be a tricky topic to find a link to iGEM, since I'm not finding any teams who have incorporated this into their projects. Therefore, we should do it. It also has an obvious tie-in to BEACON (evolution of proteins!), so that makes it doubly worth pursuing. Since these analyses tend to give higher-temp versions of proteins, we could potentially use this as a starting point for making heat-stable versions of various biotech/industrial enzymes, then tweaking/evolving to increase efficiency. The actual goal is to make some sort of new protocol that others can follow, and therefore cite when we publish in Nature. Or Science, I'm not picky.		*'''[[User:Neil R Gottel\|Neil R Gottel]] 16:31, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':This seems to be a tricky topic to find a link to iGEM, since I'm not finding any teams who have incorporated this into their projects. Therefore, we should do it. It also has an obvious tie-in to BEACON (evolution of proteins!), so that makes it doubly worth pursuing. Since these analyses tend to give higher-temp versions of proteins, we could potentially use this as a starting point for making heat-stable versions of various biotech/industrial enzymes, then tweaking/evolving to increase efficiency. The actual goal is to make some sort of new protocol that others can follow, and therefore cite when we publish in Nature. Or Science, I'm not picky.
-	**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 23:02, 21 February ~~2013~~ (EST)''': I think this might be a good idea, generate some buzz	+	**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 23:02, 21 February 201 3 (EST)''': I think this might be a good idea, generate some buzz
		+	**'''[[User:Aurko Dasgupta\|Aurko Dasgupta]] 23:02, 23 February 2013 (EST)''': This is definitely something I'd support. The only thing is that we don't seem to have anyone with any background in sequence recontruction type stuff do we? If some grad student on campus works with this kind of thing, we should try to see if they'd be interested in advising anything done on a project involving the development of a functional reconstructed protein.
	*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:51, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Is "RetroBioBricks" too hard to say?		*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:51, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Is "RetroBioBricks" too hard to say?
	*'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:39, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':One thing that seems to be missing in most topics currently is technical limitation to approaches like this. i.e. Do you need 2 sequences of a gene/protein or 10 to make it work.		*'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:39, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':One thing that seems to be missing in most topics currently is technical limitation to approaches like this. i.e. Do you need 2 sequences of a gene/protein or 10 to make it work.

Thomas Wall at 04:05, 22 February 2013

2013-02-22T04:05:12Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 04:05, 22 February 2013
Line 31:		Line 31:

	*'''[[User:Neil R Gottel\|Neil R Gottel]] 16:31, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':This seems to be a tricky topic to find a link to iGEM, since I'm not finding any teams who have incorporated this into their projects. Therefore, we should do it. It also has an obvious tie-in to BEACON (evolution of proteins!), so that makes it doubly worth pursuing. Since these analyses tend to give higher-temp versions of proteins, we could potentially use this as a starting point for making heat-stable versions of various biotech/industrial enzymes, then tweaking/evolving to increase efficiency. The actual goal is to make some sort of new protocol that others can follow, and therefore cite when we publish in Nature. Or Science, I'm not picky.		*'''[[User:Neil R Gottel\|Neil R Gottel]] 16:31, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':This seems to be a tricky topic to find a link to iGEM, since I'm not finding any teams who have incorporated this into their projects. Therefore, we should do it. It also has an obvious tie-in to BEACON (evolution of proteins!), so that makes it doubly worth pursuing. Since these analyses tend to give higher-temp versions of proteins, we could potentially use this as a starting point for making heat-stable versions of various biotech/industrial enzymes, then tweaking/evolving to increase efficiency. The actual goal is to make some sort of new protocol that others can follow, and therefore cite when we publish in Nature. Or Science, I'm not picky.
		+	**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 23:02, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': I think this might be a good idea, generate some buzz
	*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:51, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Is "RetroBioBricks" too hard to say?		*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:51, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Is "RetroBioBricks" too hard to say?
	*'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:39, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':One thing that seems to be missing in most topics currently is technical limitation to approaches like this. i.e. Do you need 2 sequences of a gene/protein or 10 to make it work.		*'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:39, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':One thing that seems to be missing in most topics currently is technical limitation to approaches like this. i.e. Do you need 2 sequences of a gene/protein or 10 to make it work.

Thomas Wall at 04:02, 22 February 2013

2013-02-22T04:02:22Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 04:02, 22 February 2013
Line 17:		Line 17:
	*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 17:08, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': Separate topic on sequencing wooly mammoths and neanderthals?		*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 17:08, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': Separate topic on sequencing wooly mammoths and neanderthals?
	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:30, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':We could call that topic '''Ancestral organism resurrection'''. It could also talk about synthesizing the 1918 Spanish flu. Here's a [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819212/ review] that might help with that topic.		**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:30, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':We could call that topic '''Ancestral organism resurrection'''. It could also talk about synthesizing the 1918 Spanish flu. Here's a [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819212/ review] that might help with that topic.
-		+	**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 21:57, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': I always thought the coolest and somewhat plausible project for an animal was the Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine), A museum was attempting to do it in Australia. That project was closed down but many more seemed to have sprung up. A recent paper about such things from a UT proff http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002240
	*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:10, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':On the topic of general to specific evolution, is there any consideration for hypermodified amino acids? Maybe the ancient proteins had post-translational modifications in the proteins that adjusted the specificity, but we don't know about it from the genetic sequence for the protein.		*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:10, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':On the topic of general to specific evolution, is there any consideration for hypermodified amino acids? Maybe the ancient proteins had post-translational modifications in the proteins that adjusted the specificity, but we don't know about it from the genetic sequence for the protein.

Thomas Wall at 03:54, 22 February 2013

2013-02-22T03:54:25Z

←Older revision		Revision as of 03:54, 22 February 2013
Line 14:		Line 14:
	**'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:47, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': I know there's some debate about it, but it's possible that at least one sample of an ancient ''H. Salinarum'' ancestor is >100 million years old. A lot of people were skeptical because the genome didn't seem that different from those of current halophilic archaea, but at least some regions didn't match anything we know of now. I wonder if it's reasonable to assume that once they're adapted to high salt, halophiles might evolve more slowly because they face less competition.		**'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:47, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': I know there's some debate about it, but it's possible that at least one sample of an ancient ''H. Salinarum'' ancestor is >100 million years old. A lot of people were skeptical because the genome didn't seem that different from those of current halophilic archaea, but at least some regions didn't match anything we know of now. I wonder if it's reasonable to assume that once they're adapted to high salt, halophiles might evolve more slowly because they face less competition.
	**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 21:47, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': This wiki entry is a good start if you are interested on the subjects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA		**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 21:47, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': This wiki entry is a good start if you are interested on the subjects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA
		+	**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 21:52, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Here they found the half life of DNA in fossil samples, 521 years, http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1748/4724
	*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 17:08, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': Separate topic on sequencing wooly mammoths and neanderthals?		*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 17:08, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': Separate topic on sequencing wooly mammoths and neanderthals?
	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:30, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':We could call that topic '''Ancestral organism resurrection'''. It could also talk about synthesizing the 1918 Spanish flu. Here's a [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819212/ review] that might help with that topic.		**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:30, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':We could call that topic '''Ancestral organism resurrection'''. It could also talk about synthesizing the 1918 Spanish flu. Here's a [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819212/ review] that might help with that topic.

←Older revision		Revision as of 20:18, 25 February 2013
Line 43:		Line 43:
	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 20:59, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':What would be an interesting protein family tree to reconstruct? I feel like one would want to explore more than thermostability (esp. since there are some caveats to the reconstruction procedure where it may be making more consensus proteins than ancestral proteins).		**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 20:59, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':What would be an interesting protein family tree to reconstruct? I feel like one would want to explore more than thermostability (esp. since there are some caveats to the reconstruction procedure where it may be making more consensus proteins than ancestral proteins).
	*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:51, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Is "RetroBioBricks" too hard to say?		*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:51, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Is "RetroBioBricks" too hard to say?
		+	*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 15:18, 25 February 2013 (EST)''':There were ideas thrown about for using reconstruction of more thermostable antibiotic resistance genes as a tool in synthetic biology?

←Older revision		Revision as of 05:36, 25 February 2013
Line 4:		Line 4:
	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 21:26, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':The idea, if not the algorithms, were probably fairly close to what goes on today.		**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 21:26, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':The idea, if not the algorithms, were probably fairly close to what goes on today.
	*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:00, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':How do the methods here compare with those used for phylogenetic placement based on ribosomal RNA sequences?		*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:00, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':How do the methods here compare with those used for phylogenetic placement based on ribosomal RNA sequences?
-	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 21:26, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':Pretty much the same in theory.	+	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 21:26, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':Pretty much the same in theory.
		+	**'''[[User:Aurko Dasgupta\|Aurko Dasgupta]] 00:36, 25 February 2013 (EST)''': The techniques used to estimate the ancestral sequences are essentially the same. However, most protein sequences are nowhere near as conserved as ribosomal sequences.

	== Ancestral Organism Resurrection?==		== Ancestral Organism Resurrection?==

←Older revision		Revision as of 02:26, 25 February 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 16:59, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': Remove the cost and methods of gene synthesis (or just reference the dna assembly section we've already gone over). Expand the codon optimization section (unless this fits better in somewhere else).	+	== Methods ==
-		+
	*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 16:59, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': How does Pauling's proposal for ancestral gene construction relate to the actual discovery of DNA structure?		*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 16:59, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': How does Pauling's proposal for ancestral gene construction relate to the actual discovery of DNA structure?
-		+	**'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 13:21, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': The Pauling and Zuckerkandl paper came out when the only protein sequence information we had came from limited peptide sequencing methods like Edman degradation (N-terminal sequencing). You might add something about the shift to using DNA or RNA sequences to infer protein sequence once techniques like Maxam-Gilbert and Sanger sequencing showed up in the '70s.
-	*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 13:21, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': The Pauling and Zuckerkandl paper came out when the only protein sequence information we had came from limited peptide sequencing methods like Edman degradation (N-terminal sequencing). You might add something about the shift to using DNA or RNA sequences to infer protein sequence once techniques like Maxam-Gilbert and Sanger sequencing showed up in the '70s.	+	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 21:26, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':The idea, if not the algorithms, were probably fairly close to what goes on today.
-		+
	*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:00, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':How do the methods here compare with those used for phylogenetic placement based on ribosomal RNA sequences?		*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:00, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':How do the methods here compare with those used for phylogenetic placement based on ribosomal RNA sequences?
		+	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 21:26, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':Pretty much the same in theory.

-	*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 17:06, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': Can you include a little more detail in your figures? ~~At least give some detail about the methods used to determine time and explain the acronyms (e.g. PNCA, GNCA, etc).~~	+	== Ancestral Organism Resurrection?==
-	**'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:36, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Adding to Gabriel's comment I already did some editing, but it would be better if you either define the acronyms and then use them or keep using the corresponding terminology.	+
	*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 17:06, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': What's the oldest intact DNA? What's the oldest speciesn being sequenced today?		*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 17:06, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': What's the oldest intact DNA? What's the oldest speciesn being sequenced today?
	**'''[[User:Catherine I. Mortensen\|Catherine I. Mortensen]] 23:19, 20 February 2013 (EST)''': I'm not sure what the oldest intact DNA is but I did find an article about the oldest living relative to eukaryotes. It's protozoan that is thought to have evolved one billion years ago. Apparently it doesn't fit into any specific kingdom. http://www.livescience.com/19955-ancient-protist-kingdom.html		**'''[[User:Catherine I. Mortensen\|Catherine I. Mortensen]] 23:19, 20 February 2013 (EST)''': I'm not sure what the oldest intact DNA is but I did find an article about the oldest living relative to eukaryotes. It's protozoan that is thought to have evolved one billion years ago. Apparently it doesn't fit into any specific kingdom. http://www.livescience.com/19955-ancient-protist-kingdom.html
Line 18:		Line 16:
	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:30, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':We could call that topic '''Ancestral organism resurrection'''. It could also talk about synthesizing the 1918 Spanish flu. Here's a [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819212/ review] that might help with that topic.		**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:30, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':We could call that topic '''Ancestral organism resurrection'''. It could also talk about synthesizing the 1918 Spanish flu. Here's a [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819212/ review] that might help with that topic.
	**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 21:57, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': I always thought the coolest and somewhat plausible project for an animal was the Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine), A museum was attempting to do it in Australia. That project was closed down but many more seemed to have sprung up. A recent paper about such things from a UT proff http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002240		**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 21:57, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': I always thought the coolest and somewhat plausible project for an animal was the Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine), A museum was attempting to do it in Australia. That project was closed down but many more seemed to have sprung up. A recent paper about such things from a UT proff http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002240
		+
		+	== Caveats and Limitations ==
	*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:10, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':On the topic of general to specific evolution, is there any consideration for hypermodified amino acids? Maybe the ancient proteins had post-translational modifications in the proteins that adjusted the specificity, but we don't know about it from the genetic sequence for the protein.		*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:10, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':On the topic of general to specific evolution, is there any consideration for hypermodified amino acids? Maybe the ancient proteins had post-translational modifications in the proteins that adjusted the specificity, but we don't know about it from the genetic sequence for the protein.
	**'''[[User:Aurko Dasgupta\|Aurko Dasgupta]] 23:16, 23 February 2013 (EST)''': I have yet to find any specifics on how post-translational modification could affect final protein specificity. That said, I think it's an extremely pertinent point, and will keep looking for something that answers this.		**'''[[User:Aurko Dasgupta\|Aurko Dasgupta]] 23:16, 23 February 2013 (EST)''': I have yet to find any specifics on how post-translational modification could affect final protein specificity. That said, I think it's an extremely pertinent point, and will keep looking for something that answers this.
		+	*'''[[User:Siddharth Das\|Siddharth Das]] 19:24, 19 February 2012(EST)''': With even the most powerful statistics tools and rigorous mathematics, how useful is this technology in terms of evolutionary studies, since it seems the genes themselves are inaccurate representations (varying mutation rate for the past million year, etc)? Furthermore, is it safe to assume that the genetic code was as conserved as it is today? There are exceptions even now; for example, in the fungus Candida, CUG codes for serine instead of leucine. On a different note, the wiki is very well organized.
		+	*There's a nice study where they show that the methods used to reconstruct the ancestral sequences (whether parsimony or maximum likelihood) tend to overestimate the thermal stability of the reconstructed proteins because they favor "consensus" proteins.
		+	*'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:39, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':One thing that seems to be missing in most topics currently is technical limitation to approaches like this. i.e. Do you need 2 sequences of a gene/protein or 10 to make it work.

		+	== Content and Formatting ==
		+	*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 17:06, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': Can you include a little more detail in your figures? At least give some detail about the methods used to determine time and explain the acronyms (e.g. PNCA, GNCA, etc).
		+	**'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:36, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Adding to Gabriel's comment I already did some editing, but it would be better if you either define the acronyms and then use them or keep using the corresponding terminology.
		+	*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 16:59, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': Remove the cost and methods of gene synthesis (or just reference the dna assembly section we've already gone over). Expand the codon optimization section (unless this fits better in somewhere else).
	*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 17:16, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':Add a picture of the fluorescent proteins (take one from [http://www.bio.utexas.edu/research/matz_lab/matzlab/Welcome.html Matz Lab website]?		*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 17:16, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':Add a picture of the fluorescent proteins (take one from [http://www.bio.utexas.edu/research/matz_lab/matzlab/Welcome.html Matz Lab website]?
	**'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:36, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':Expanding on this, a visual on how the process is carried (a pipeline image) would be more useful for the reader.		**'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:36, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':Expanding on this, a visual on how the process is carried (a pipeline image) would be more useful for the reader.
		+	*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:37, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':Please add the titles of papers in the bibliography on your own as is done in other topics. You might also send feedback to OWW to tell them the bibio extension is broken to see if someday they will fix it.

		+	==Reconstruction of co-evolution==
	*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 17:20, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': From Andre: Discussion of Red Queen hypothesis and how ancestral gene reconstruction can show us evolution of interactions between host and virus proteins.		*'''[[User:Gabriel Wu\|Gabriel Wu]] 17:20, 18 February 2013 (EST)''': From Andre: Discussion of Red Queen hypothesis and how ancestral gene reconstruction can show us evolution of interactions between host and virus proteins.
	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:30, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':If it's specific proteins I'd put it in this topic. If it's whole viruses, I'd kick to it a whole-organism topic.		**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:30, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':If it's specific proteins I'd put it in this topic. If it's whole viruses, I'd kick to it a whole-organism topic.
-
-	*'''[[User:Siddharth Das\|Siddharth Das]] 19:24, 19 February 2012(EST)''': With even the most powerful statistics tools and rigorous mathematics, how useful is this technology in terms of evolutionary studies, since it seems the genes themselves are inaccurate representations (varying mutation rate for the past million year, etc)? Furthermore, is it safe to assume that the genetic code was as conserved as it is today? There are exceptions even now; for example, in the fungus Candida, CUG codes for serine instead of leucine. On a different note, the wiki is very well organized.
-
-	*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:37, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':Please add the titles of papers in the bibliography on your own as is done in other topics. You might also send feedback to OWW to tell them the bibio extension is broken to see if someday they will fix it.

	== iGEM team connection ==		== iGEM team connection ==
Line 37:		Line 42:
	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 20:59, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':What would be an interesting protein family tree to reconstruct? I feel like one would want to explore more than thermostability (esp. since there are some caveats to the reconstruction procedure where it may be making more consensus proteins than ancestral proteins).		**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 20:59, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':What would be an interesting protein family tree to reconstruct? I feel like one would want to explore more than thermostability (esp. since there are some caveats to the reconstruction procedure where it may be making more consensus proteins than ancestral proteins).
	*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:51, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Is "RetroBioBricks" too hard to say?		*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:51, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Is "RetroBioBricks" too hard to say?
-
-	~~== Limitations ==~~
-	*'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:39, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':One thing that seems to be missing in most topics currently is technical limitation to approaches like this. i.e. Do you need 2 sequences of a gene/protein or 10 to make it work.

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:59, 25 February 2013
Line 31:		Line 31:
	*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:37, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':Please add the titles of papers in the bibliography on your own as is done in other topics. You might also send feedback to OWW to tell them the bibio extension is broken to see if someday they will fix it.		*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 18:37, 20 February 2013 (EST)''':Please add the titles of papers in the bibliography on your own as is done in other topics. You might also send feedback to OWW to tell them the bibio extension is broken to see if someday they will fix it.

		+	== iGEM team connection ==
	*'''[[User:Neil R Gottel\|Neil R Gottel]] 16:31, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':This seems to be a tricky topic to find a link to iGEM, since I'm not finding any teams who have incorporated this into their projects. Therefore, we should do it. It also has an obvious tie-in to BEACON (evolution of proteins!), so that makes it doubly worth pursuing. Since these analyses tend to give higher-temp versions of proteins, we could potentially use this as a starting point for making heat-stable versions of various biotech/industrial enzymes, then tweaking/evolving to increase efficiency. The actual goal is to make some sort of new protocol that others can follow, and therefore cite when we publish in Nature. Or Science, I'm not picky.		*'''[[User:Neil R Gottel\|Neil R Gottel]] 16:31, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':This seems to be a tricky topic to find a link to iGEM, since I'm not finding any teams who have incorporated this into their projects. Therefore, we should do it. It also has an obvious tie-in to BEACON (evolution of proteins!), so that makes it doubly worth pursuing. Since these analyses tend to give higher-temp versions of proteins, we could potentially use this as a starting point for making heat-stable versions of various biotech/industrial enzymes, then tweaking/evolving to increase efficiency. The actual goal is to make some sort of new protocol that others can follow, and therefore cite when we publish in Nature. Or Science, I'm not picky.
	**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 23:02, 21 February 201 3 (EST)''': I think this might be a good idea, generate some buzz		**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 23:02, 21 February 201 3 (EST)''': I think this might be a good idea, generate some buzz
	**'''[[User:Aurko Dasgupta\|Aurko Dasgupta]] 23:02, 23 February 2013 (EST)''': This is definitely something I'd support. The only thing is that we don't seem to have anyone with any background in sequence recontruction type stuff do we? If some grad student on campus works with this kind of thing, we should try to see if they'd be interested in advising anything done on a project involving the development of a functional reconstructed protein.		**'''[[User:Aurko Dasgupta\|Aurko Dasgupta]] 23:02, 23 February 2013 (EST)''': This is definitely something I'd support. The only thing is that we don't seem to have anyone with any background in sequence recontruction type stuff do we? If some grad student on campus works with this kind of thing, we should try to see if they'd be interested in advising anything done on a project involving the development of a functional reconstructed protein.
		+	**'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 20:59, 24 February 2013 (EST)''':What would be an interesting protein family tree to reconstruct? I feel like one would want to explore more than thermostability (esp. since there are some caveats to the reconstruction procedure where it may be making more consensus proteins than ancestral proteins).
	*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:51, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Is "RetroBioBricks" too hard to say?		*'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman\|Benjamin Gilman]] 16:51, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': Is "RetroBioBricks" too hard to say?
		+
		+	== Limitations ==
	*'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:39, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':One thing that seems to be missing in most topics currently is technical limitation to approaches like this. i.e. Do you need 2 sequences of a gene/protein or 10 to make it work.		*'''[[User:Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.\|Alvaro E. Rodriguez M.]] 21:39, 21 February 2013 (EST)''':One thing that seems to be missing in most topics currently is technical limitation to approaches like this. i.e. Do you need 2 sequences of a gene/protein or 10 to make it work.

←Older revision		Revision as of 04:16, 24 February 2013
Line 19:		Line 19:
	**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 21:57, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': I always thought the coolest and somewhat plausible project for an animal was the Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine), A museum was attempting to do it in Australia. That project was closed down but many more seemed to have sprung up. A recent paper about such things from a UT proff http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002240		**'''[[User:Thomas Wall\|Thomas Wall]] 21:57, 21 February 2013 (EST)''': I always thought the coolest and somewhat plausible project for an animal was the Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacine), A museum was attempting to do it in Australia. That project was closed down but many more seemed to have sprung up. A recent paper about such things from a UT proff http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002240
	*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:10, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':On the topic of general to specific evolution, is there any consideration for hypermodified amino acids? Maybe the ancient proteins had post-translational modifications in the proteins that adjusted the specificity, but we don't know about it from the genetic sequence for the protein.		*'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge\|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:10, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':On the topic of general to specific evolution, is there any consideration for hypermodified amino acids? Maybe the ancient proteins had post-translational modifications in the proteins that adjusted the specificity, but we don't know about it from the genetic sequence for the protein.
		+	**'''[[User:Aurko Dasgupta\|Aurko Dasgupta]] 23:16, 23 February 2013 (EST)''': I have yet to find any specifics on how post-translational modification could affect final protein specificity. That said, I think it's an extremely pertinent point, and will keep looking for something that answers this.

	*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 17:16, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':Add a picture of the fluorescent proteins (take one from [http://www.bio.utexas.edu/research/matz_lab/matzlab/Welcome.html Matz Lab website]?		*'''[[User:Jeffrey E. Barrick\|Jeffrey E. Barrick]] 17:16, 18 February 2013 (EST)''':Add a picture of the fluorescent proteins (take one from [http://www.bio.utexas.edu/research/matz_lab/matzlab/Welcome.html Matz Lab website]?