Talk:CH391L/S13/BioBricksAndRegistry: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
'''[[User:Benjamin Gilman|Benjamin Gilman]] 18:36, 30 January 2013 (EST)''': The page says that there's no real way to measure PoPS ''in vivo.'' Where do the PoPS numbers for different BioBricks come from then? | '''[[User:Benjamin Gilman|Benjamin Gilman]] 18:36, 30 January 2013 (EST)''': The page says that there's no real way to measure PoPS ''in vivo.'' Where do the PoPS numbers for different BioBricks come from then? | ||
*'''[[User:Neil R Gottel|Neil R Gottel]] 19:03, 30 January 2013 (EST)''':Biobricks should really switch to some sort of standard where if you haven't proven that a part works as advertised, then it shouldn't be on the registry. Also the current standard is behind the current technology, as noted in the "legacy" section. Does Knight et al. still stand by the biobrick standard/concept? Is there a movement to have a real, usable registry that doesn't make me want to scream after using it for five seconds? A good start would be a "premium" section, where only parts that were demonstrated to work (or at least were presented as working at the regionals and finals) would be listed. | |||
Revision as of 17:03, 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Kevin Baldridge 17:49, 28 January 2013 (EST):The registry seems to be a bit outdated.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...
Benjamin Gilman 18:36, 30 January 2013 (EST): The page says that there's no real way to measure PoPS in vivo. Where do the PoPS numbers for different BioBricks come from then?
- Neil R Gottel 19:03, 30 January 2013 (EST):Biobricks should really switch to some sort of standard where if you haven't proven that a part works as advertised, then it shouldn't be on the registry. Also the current standard is behind the current technology, as noted in the "legacy" section. Does Knight et al. still stand by the biobrick standard/concept? Is there a movement to have a real, usable registry that doesn't make me want to scream after using it for five seconds? A good start would be a "premium" section, where only parts that were demonstrated to work (or at least were presented as working at the regionals and finals) would be listed.
