Human Bex2 interacts with LMO2 and regulates the transcriptional activity of a novel DNA-binding complex Chunyu Han, Hao Liu1, Jin Liu, Kang Yin2, Yi Xie2, Xiao Shen, Yong Wang, Jiangang Yuan, Boqing Qiang, Yong-Jian Liu1,* and Xiaozhong Peng - Author Affiliations
National Laboratory of Medical Molecular Biology, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Chinese National Human Genome Center Beijing, People's Republic of China 1Departments of Neurology and Neurobiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA 2College of Biology, Fudan University Shanghai, People's Republic of China *To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +1 412648 3730; Fax: +1 412 624 9914; Email: [email protected]/* <![CDATA[ */!function(t,e,r,n,c,a,p){try{t=document.currentScript||function(){for(t=document.getElementsByTagName('script'),e=t.length;e--;)if(t[e].getAttribute('data-cfhash'))return t[e]}();if(t&&(c=t.previousSibling)){p=t.parentNode;if(a=c.getAttribute('data-cfemail')){for(e='',r='0x'+a.substr(0,2)|0,n=2;a.length-n;n+=2)e+='%'+('0'+('0x'+a.substr(n,2)^r).toString(16)).slice(-2);p.replaceChild(document.createTextNode(decodeURIComponent(e)),c)}p.removeChild(t)}}catch(u){}}()/* ]]> */ Received September 20, 2005. Revision received October 31, 2005. Accepted October 31, 2005.
The key question here is if the NgAGO is working really vs. Artificially observed several indels. If the indel is real, that is, the indel is as expected from experimental design, even, the frequency is low, then NgAGO is working, then there is no need to discuss the repetition of the NBT paper. All the remaining work is to improve its efficiency. Alternatively, if those indels were just randomly generated, not expected from experimental designs, then, NgAGO has not worked in their experiments. This is the bottom line.
这就是说仇无法重复韩的结果。
这就是说仇无法重复韩的结果。
这个少于5%是如何统计出来的？
这就是仇下一步亚要做的事情？
我比较关心的是他们有什么高超技巧
当然，如果说要准备手稿那就算了
测序应该不是挑单克隆吧，这个比例怎么得到的？
Human Bex2 interacts with LMO2 and regulates the transcriptional activity of a novel DNA-binding complex
Chunyu Han, Hao Liu1, Jin Liu, Kang Yin2, Yi Xie2, Xiao Shen, Yong Wang,
Jiangang Yuan, Boqing Qiang, Yong-Jian Liu1,* and Xiaozhong Peng
- Author Affiliations
National Laboratory of Medical Molecular Biology, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical
College, Chinese National Human Genome Center Beijing, People's Republic of China
1Departments of Neurology and Neurobiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
2College of Biology, Fudan University Shanghai, People's Republic of China
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +1 412648 3730; Fax: +1
412 624 9914; Email: [email protected]/* <![CDATA[ */!function(t,e,r,n,c,a,p){try{t=document.currentScript||function(){for(t=document.getElementsByTagName('script'),e=t.length;e--;)if(t[e].getAttribute('data-cfhash'))return t[e]}();if(t&&(c=t.previousSibling)){p=t.parentNode;if(a=c.getAttribute('data-cfemail')){for(e='',r='0x'+a.substr(0,2)|0,n=2;a.length-n;n+=2)e+='%'+('0'+('0x'+a.substr(n,2)^r).toString(16)).slice(-2);p.replaceChild(document.createTextNode(decodeURIComponent(e)),c)}p.removeChild(t)}}catch(u){}}()/* ]]> */
Received September 20, 2005.
Revision received October 31, 2005.
Accepted October 31, 2005.
NgAgo也要给个数据，0.1%也是小于5%，但是这个0.1%就非常有意义了。等于没有切割。
仇的学生做实验有什么猫腻？
。。
当然那些因为重复不出来而询问甚至质疑的，只要是客观的报道自己的结果，都是要鼓励的
这个小于5%就是猫腻。
有谁0.1%会说不到5%啊。。。
者设计方法？
不过能做出来就算不错了
后面的优化只是时间问题．
韩还是第一人，只是不告诉你怎么做的
不过这项技术显然是不依赖于基因位点，难道搞掉p53的细胞自我阳性扩增，本来万分
之一，但是几天内疯狂扩增到百分之五，也不太应该，293本身就是疯狂细胞。这也解
释不了kras。
方法什么关键也没说，显然没严格按照颜的方法。人也没义务告诉我们就是了，赶紧投稿吧。希望大家都能重复出来他的方法。
大家冷静想一想，世界上那么多实验室都重复不出来（包括我们），这些人真都不如韩的水平高？没有他实验室的条件好？假如当初大家没有找到NGAGO有可能，现在这么多
实验室都在用NGAGO，却没有work，况且实验并不复杂，可能吗？
至今天，我越来越相信结论只有一个：韩有伪造数据的严重嫌疑。
仇发了之后，韩就说，其实这就是我隐藏的高超技巧
不要烧香引出鬼。
几十个克隆，为什么又要来差不多主义？30个也是几十个，那么3.5deletion/100个克
隆，的确是低于5%。
自发突变发生在guide区域会产生假阳性，但是概率应该挺小。不知道多小，跟“不到5%”比如何。
另外我同意你的观点，时至今日，重复成功的结果更应当谨慎对待。
另外我同意你的观点，时至今日，重复成功的结果更应当谨慎对待。
strand invasion， 形成D-loop, 最后被resolvase切掉？
这个描述好精妙。这概率不可能是负数，有可能是零，有可能是正数，只要不大于5%
2. a)我们的结果也与大部分实验室的结果一致。
b)我们的结果也与澳洲教授的结果相似。
4. 我们也相信韩老师高超技巧一说。
仇教授实验室支持所有人的结果和猜测。大家不要吵了。
observed several indels.
If the indel is real, that is, the indel is as expected from experimental
design, even, the frequency is low, then NgAGO is working, then there is no need to discuss the repetition of the NBT paper. All the remaining work is
to improve its efficiency.
Alternatively, if those indels were just randomly generated, not expected
from experimental designs, then, NgAGO has not worked in their experiments.
This is the bottom line.
没有一个人重复出来。
不过深挖火锅哥，很有意思