Talk:CH391L/S13/BioBricksAndRegistry: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
'''[[User:Kevin Baldridge|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:49, 28 January 2013 (EST)''':The registry seems to be a bit outdated. It needs some serious work with user interface and curation by experienced scientists to remove duplicates, etc. Is the AddGene database similar concept with a better implementation? | '''[[User:Kevin Baldridge|Kevin Baldridge]] 17:49, 28 January 2013 (EST)''':The registry seems to be a bit outdated. It needs some serious work with user interface and curation by experienced scientists to remove duplicates, etc. Is the AddGene database similar concept with a better implementation? | ||
'''[[User:Catherine I. Mortensen|Catherine I. Mortensen]] 16:31, 30 January 2013 (EST)''': Are there any known labs that have had success with the something like AddGene or the registry? It seems users have had little success according to their reviews... | |||
Revision as of 14:31, 30 January 2013
Gabriel Wu 23:14, 27 January 2013 (EST)There's no way there's only 700 parts in the registry. If you check the history on that page you've referenced the last time it was updated was in 2006.
Gabriel Wu: Please post the video you played in class on this website. I need a place to reference 'klivers.'
Gabriel Wu 17:42, 28 January 2013 (EST): What was the first BioBrick?
Kevin Baldridge 17:49, 28 January 2013 (EST):The registry seems to be a bit outdated. It needs some serious work with user interface and curation by experienced scientists to remove duplicates, etc. Is the AddGene database similar concept with a better implementation?
Catherine I. Mortensen 16:31, 30 January 2013 (EST): Are there any known labs that have had success with the something like AddGene or the registry? It seems users have had little success according to their reviews...
