Talk:CH391L/S14/Genome Synthesis


 * --Mindy (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2014 (CST) The spacing and arrangement of images and text is very asthetically pleasing. The images are small but obviously they can be enlarged so to save space leaving them that size is probably optimal. The only thought I had was perhaps indicating (in just a couple words as part of the sentence) what a minimal genome is in your intro in case readers don't know. Everything is very well written and looks great, so that would be my only suggestion.


 * --Ella Watkins (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2014 (CST) Not sure if supposed to say "assembly" rather than "assemble" in technology section on fifth row down... just a typo? Also label the last figure, where does it go with? And if you can fix the "1. that goes under the 2." in the early work section and make it a bullet, that would make it easier to read. Sorry to nitpick, your wiki is just so good I can't see anything else!
 * --drewtack (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2014 (CST)Oh stop it you're making me blush! I agree with all three of your suggestions and have made, in my opinion, appropriate adjustments.  Thanks for the feedback.


 * --Dennis Mishler (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2014 (CST)Drew, where did your first figure come from? And your 3rd figure?  It also needs a legend.
 * --drewtack (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2014 (CST)I believe I have addressed these. I made the first image, how should I note that?


 * --Dennis Mishler (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2014 (CST) Drew, as Jeff mentioned in class, wasn't there an early study that synthesized the Polio genome? I would include a mention of this and relate it to "dual use" research... a topic which we will cover later in the semester.
 * --drewtack (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2014 (CST)Mentioned in wiki, tie to dual purpose research.


 * --Chen-Hsun Tsai (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2014 (CST) The overall content and structure of this wiki is good and easy to read. The figures are also very helpful. I also want to know more about the history, like did anyone do a pioneer work before 2008, or similar work but doesn't work that well? Also, you have mentioned there is a reproducible synthetic genome created, and I am very interested with that so it will be great if you can elaborate more.
 * --drewtack (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2014 (CST)Added a portion on a synethesized polio vaccine from 2002. Clarify the capabilities of Synthia.  Synthia is capable of replication, as all living things are.


 * --Gabriel Suarez (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2014 (CST) Very nice layout! Under 'History', I guess the first functioning-reproducing synthetic cell deserves citation, that way those interested in knowing more can have easy access to that info. Also, when you mention Chew Back and Anneal Assembly, it is written as if these are different assembly techniques, but in essence it's all Gibson Assembly, and there are other assembly techs out there.  Lastly, I'm not sure about the last statement "brought to life" in the 'Future' section about Mycoplasma laboritorium, I think it should be cleared that still the molecular machinery and chemical environment that would allow it to replicate would not be synthetic.
 * --drewtack (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2014 (CST)Gabriel, thanks for that last bit especially. I think that was a major oversight on my part.


 * --Liz (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2014 (CST) Overall, I really like the flow of the information you included. I think some of the ideas you present could be clearer if the sentences were cleaned up a bit, especially sentences with lots of commas (it's to its small genome size- sorry I'm horrible :) ) .  I also think it would be helpful to define some of your terms or rearrange the order slightly. For example, you present some of the problems with the technology before you explain the specific techniques.  I think it would be better to move those issues below the explanation of the work- then it is more obvious how those problems affect/ are addressed by the technique. Also, (as another example) I'm not familiar with amber stop codon- maybe a link to a definition would help.  I think your History section could benefit from links right there in the text to the original papers you mention. (And what was a quick main difference between those two papers?).
 * --drewtack (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2014 (CST)Thanks for the input, and I agree. I have done some rearranging, but need to step away and return to get a better outside view on it's structure, but there are weak points that I notice as well.  Also, linking to codon table, and amber codon wiki pages.

--Dennis Mishler (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2014 (CST) Ashley's Critique

Introduction and background material: The introduction was very well put and concise. It defined the terms very plainly and did a good job of keeping everything simple. It would be helpful to define “minimal genome” though, as a reader who is not familiar with the concept of a synthetic genome may not know what a minimal genome is. I am also slightly confused as to what the phrase “existing works have been proofs of concepts,” maybe a second paragraph that expands on what are the concepts are and how synthetic genomes have proved these concepts would be helpful.

The history section also does a good job at being concise. Understandably the history of Synthetic Genomes is not very long as it is a fairly new concept.

Methods and main body/concepts:

The methods and main body paragraphs were well worded and easily understood. There was some mixing of topics more related to “future directions” then the main body, however that is probably best as the field is very new and the main focus should be on where it is going.

One critique I do have is that there is some repetition and overlap between the “Technology” section and the “Early Work” section.

Relation to iGEM and future directions: A good portion of each section in the Wikipedia page talks about the future, and the “Future” section of the article repeats what is already said in the introduction. If it were not a requirement by the assignment to have a future section, I would recommend deleting the section, as it is somewhat unnecessary for this article (given the amount the future is talked about in the previous sections).

The iGEM section was quite brief, and perhaps talking more about those projects would benefit future UT iGEM projects as they could build upon those concepts. Although these projects do not seem ground breaking, perhaps a sentence or two earlier in the paper about how iGEM teams are striving towards achieving a minimal genome would be appropriate.

Figures, Figure legends, and citations: There are few figures at the beginning of the article, but there is no real need for there to be any as there are not any concepts that require any visual aids. The ones used in the early work and synthia section were well placed and tied everything together.

In addition to mentioning the people involved in certain ground breaking experiments, I would suggest having more footnote citations, as the first three and last two sections of the article don’t have any.