Talk:CH391L/S14/StochasticGeneExpression


 * --Dennis Mishler (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2014 (CST) Chen, for the introduction, the topic is clearly explained, but the grammar needs to be refined.
 * --Dennis Mishler (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2014 (CST) Chen, the grammar throughout the page can be improved. Many of the errors relate to singular versus plural subject/verb agreement.  It may be useful to have a native speaker look over some of the text.
 * --Dennis Mishler (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2014 (CST) I really like your figures. Good job on finding powerful figures.
 * --Dennis Mishler (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2014 (CST) The final figures in your wiki appear to have no citation. If you created them, please mention this.  Otherwise, include the citation.
 * Chen-Hsun Tsai (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2014 (CST) thanks and I have tried to fix most of the grammar mistakes, please let me know if you see anything I missed.
 * --Jorge Vazquez (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2014 (CDT)Very good job Chen. Your wiki article was of an appropriate length and at the same time it covered most of what I'd be interested about the topic. Two small comments: there is apparently and "s" missing in the first paragraph, second sentence should read "...small number of DNA or RNA molecules..." (the word molecules). Also, I would enjoy learning if this stochastic gene expression has been addressed so that it can be controlled and decreased and if so how scientists approach this.
 * --Liz (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2014 (CDT)Chen- I think this was great for a complicated topic. Some small notes - you might want to actually put the term "intrinsic noise" where you define it in the introduction- as I read it you only explicitly define extrinsic noise. Also, there don't seem to be any citations for your mathematical model information- are they the same references as the relevant figures? It might be nice to have a sentence describing smFISH- I realize the name is self explanatory but for complete clarity- even a hyperlink on smFISH to a relevant wiki would be helpful. I thought the most interesting part was where you described the current related research. My last suggestion would be to flesh this section out a bit- ie what genes were they studying (does it matter?), what is the importance that constitutive genes are not as correlated?  I think the conclusion/future direction of the papers you cite (or papers that cite them) might have some exciting tidbits you could put here.  Good job!
 * Ashley Kessel (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2014 (CST) I think the first introductory paragraph needs a little rewording, as it is somewhat confusing to someone who is not an expert in the field. How do two "identical" twins have different amounts of gene expression, and how is there a correlation between that and there been few DNA and RNA copies in the cell?