Talk:Reviews:Directed evolution/Library construction: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
m (Thoughts on presentation added) |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
This is adapated more or less directly from the original text. The major modification is that Figure 2 has been removed as this was adapated from a paper in Nature Biotech. I could check up on the copyright issues but as this is a part of the review that needs modifications anyway I probably won't bother. | This is adapated more or less directly from the original text. The major modification is that Figure 2 has been removed as this was adapated from a paper in Nature Biotech. I could check up on the copyright issues but as this is a part of the review that needs modifications anyway I probably won't bother. | ||
At some point there will need to be a general format for the top of these reviews. Is there a title and primary reference for instance? Original authors? Should reviews be dewikified as well? | |||
==Todo List== | ==Todo List== |
Revision as of 09:01, 5 April 2007
General Comments
This is adapated more or less directly from the original text. The major modification is that Figure 2 has been removed as this was adapated from a paper in Nature Biotech. I could check up on the copyright issues but as this is a part of the review that needs modifications anyway I probably won't bother.
At some point there will need to be a general format for the top of these reviews. Is there a title and primary reference for instance? Original authors? Should reviews be dewikified as well?
Todo List
Good place to list the things that need to be done on this review.
General presentation and logistics
References need to be converted to biblio format. Probably a good opportunity to think about Reference formats. What is the best place for them (separate page, bottom of same page?).
Email appropriate editor at NAR to enquire about writing a short paper to get a primary citation for the WikiReview.
Contact some directed evolution people to help out with curation.
Other issues?
Science and updating
Several areas need work to bring this up to date. If anyone has some particular references that they feel should be included it would be helpful to categorise them below. General criteria is that they need to give a good description of the methodology and any practical issues as well as apply it to a real experiment.
In vivo error prone methods
Error-prone PCR methods
Random incorporation/deletion methods
Quite a lot to be done here. Need a new picture for this class.
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/9/e80