Talk:Reviews:Directed evolution/Library construction

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search

RSS feed for this (discussion) page

Mailing list for this review

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.

Todo List

Good place to list the things that need to be done on this review.

General presentation and logistics

References have been converted to biblio format. There is also now an Endnote style for generating a properly formatted text and reference list for biblio. The bibliography for the review has been placed on a separate page as I think this is probably the best way to do it as it will ultimately allow for linked bibliographies for a set of reviews in the area of directed evolution. The catch is that I've given them references that are just numbers (which correspond to record numbers in an Endnote file I have) so maintaining multiple bibliographies that are all cross compatible could get challenging.

Email appropriate editor at NAR to enquire about writing a short paper to get a primary citation for the WikiReview.

  • Cameron Neylon 26 April 2007: Will wait on this until the review is more up to date before doing this.

Contact some directed evolution people to help out with curation.

  • Cameron Neylon 26 April 2007: Done. Sent this email to people who cited the original review in papers describing new and improved methods for library construction.

It occurs to me it would be good to link the review to consensus protocols on OWW. Need to think about how to get a relatively large number of such protocols up on the system. If enough of the relevant people sign up as curators for the review then hopefully they can be persuaded to put up the relevant protocols as well.

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

DOne some work here but needs cleaning up. Need to make some decisisons about what (not) to include

pmid=15585138 - this link seems to be broken, currently checking - see nbt paper below - in - this may belong in RID methods below - need discussion of various polymerases (?) - in - in - generation of random sequences - protocol for whole plasmid error prone RCA - in

Random insertion/deletion methods

The importance of insertions and deletions to protein engineering is highlighted in this review And the benefit of these mutations are highlighted here

The original article concerning the commercially available transposon-based pentapeptide scanning mutagenesis method. Which is also reviewed here - I guess this belongs here

The construction of artificial molecular switches by domain insertion using non-homologous recombination

Nicely reviewed here and here

Directed methods - added - added - left out - added - added - added

Recombination methods - protocol on Nature Protocols

  • Cameron Neylon 17 July 2007: I've added a bunch of things here as I came across them while looking for ep-PCR related papers.

Other tools

Analysis of mutation methods

There is now a significant amount of work on analysis, both functional and theoretical of mutations methods and how this relates to results of the DE experiment. Perhaps a new section is required to cover this? (?)


Hi there, this is a good article, but I'm puzzled about how this can be licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" license since the Nucleic acids research license contains conditions and restrictions on commercial use. Surely these two licenses are incompatible? Tim Vickers 12:46, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

Cameron Neylon 14:59, 23 October 2007 (CDT) Yes I need to check back on this with OUP. When I first set it up the NAR license seemed to be different than it is now and I thought it was a CC license (if you look at the history you can see I changed the reference a month or so back when I realised it wasn't). There is this potential issue with commercial re-use of this. Although there is a grey area in as much as the article is now significantly changed as well (which is allowed under the NAR license). But there is a more general issue because as NAR retain copyright of the original article they can arbitrarily change any license as well.

Yes, it would be a pity if this didn't work out. This kind of thing is why Wikipedia is so strict about all content being freely-available, since although all-free content is harder to set up it is much easier to administer. Tim Vickers 16:30, 23 October 2007 (CDT)