Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

BlooDemon

Member Since 25 Oct 2011
Offline Last Active Nov 21 2012 05:38 AM

Find content

Community Stats

Group Active Members
Active Posts 11
Profile Views 496
Member Title member
Age Age Unknown
Birthday Birthday Unknown
Gender
Not Telling

Contact Information

0 Neutral

Friends

BlooDemon hasn't added any friends yet.

Latest Visitors

hobglobin
15 Jul 2012 - 04:22
mpj
26 Jun 2012 - 12:56
pito
22 Jun 2012 - 10:27
merinator
26 Oct 2011 - 18:16

Posts I've Made

In Topic: About the order of corresponding authors (2 c.a.)

22 July 2012 - 05:59 PM

gebirgsziege, on 16 July 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

leelee I agree with you - first and senior author are improtant on their own. Coresponding authors usually gives extra weight to a second author who contributed equally to the work but is listed second and not first for what ever reason (alphabetical order, careere stage or whatever was used to decide). What I mean is that A, B, C, D, E and F have published a paper and A and B have contributed equally to the work (indicated by an asteriks or whatever). Means A and B are both first authors in terms of CV etc - but to make this more obvious to the reader B is corresponding author as well - because usually you look for the first and last author of a paper to see who was in charge of it.

so you mean, basically, the last corresponding author is more responsible than the second last one in a paper with two corresponding authors as last two in order?

leelee Posted Image

, you make me more clear-cut about author order stuff in a paper.

In Topic: About the order of corresponding authors (2 c.a.)

15 July 2012 - 04:58 AM

hobglobin, on 15 July 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

As a rule of thumb, usually the first author is the dude how did the actual work (in the lab and a lot of the writing) and is most important, the next are co-authors (no idea about the order) and the last is the big boss (e.g. supervisor, PI, director of the department, grey eminence with a well known name).
But this is true for biologists, others use alphabetic lists or order them according to the contribution.
Some journals already ask for a description what each author contributed in a footnote (e.g. PNAS).

Hobglobin, thanks for your prompt reply. i knew what you just input. What confuses me, however, is the order of corresponding authors. e.g. we have 5 authors in the manuscript, 2 of them are the corresponding authors. At the same time, none of them is first author but last two in order. So how to determine the order of these two corresponding authors? who is the more important one? the last one? i have been told the last c.a. as a bigger boss is much more responsible for the whole paper stuff. Is that right?
thanks!

In Topic: Saccharomyces cerevisiae BY4743, wild type?

12 July 2012 - 07:18 AM

hi guys, thanks for all the comments. As Pito sugggested, i did enquire the "wild-type" things from some guys who did mention the "wild-type"in their papers. You guys are correct it does mean original or parental strains. i post two of their answers as following:

1. Your question is a good one. You are correct that BY4743 is not wild type in all respects having mutations in several genes. It is the original strain used for further modifications. You’ll find this usage of the term “wild type” in all yeast genetics papers but it is not strictly accurate.

2. We used BY4743 as the parental strain of all mutants. BY4743 is a designer yeast strain. all auxotrophic markers are completely deleted by homologous recombination.
You are correct in that it is not living in nature, but microbiologists use this strain to disrupt genes by auxotrophic or drug resistance markers, thus we call it wild type strain.

You guys really helped me out. thanks again. By the way, Pito, your logo is so special. Is that you, or your father, or grand? Anyway, it's adorable!

all the best

In Topic: Saccharomyces cerevisiae BY4743, wild type?

24 June 2012 - 01:54 AM

pito, on 22 June 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

if you check: http://wiki.yeastgen..._strains#BY4743 , its obvious its not a "wild type" as in: found in nature , and nothing human has been done with it...

So its not a "real wild type" , what they mean (I think, havent checked the papers) in those papers is that they used the "original (wild) type" as been created the first time.

Appreciate your help. it's much clear for me now.

Google Sign in options