Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeCEN1-lacO strain construction
Posted by deandawson on 05 May 2010 at 15:57 GMT
The plasmid pJN2 targeted 256 lacO repeats to CEN1 (coordinates 153583–154854). Correct integration was confirmed genetically.
http://plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010336#article1.body1.sec4.sec2.p1
The authors would like to acknowledge that original CEN1-lacO strain was constructed by Amit Bardhan (see ref. 17). CEN1-lacO strains used in this study were either provided by A. Bardhan (ABY194-Nd) or were derived by back cross with the original CEN-lacO strain or its descendents.
RE: CEN1-lacO strain construction
amitbardhan replied to deandawson on 08 May 2010 at 05:04 GMT
This note on CEN1::LacO strain construction was added after I expressed objection about the article.
Like with any in vivo genetic system, strain construction in yeast is a significant part of experiments. By elaborating the CEN1::LacO strain construction in the M&M without referring to the original article, and without specifying the source of the strain in the acknowledgement, this article seemed to originally suggest that construction of this strain was part of the work described in the article.
The Editor decided that these do not call for retrospective modification of the article since I was acknowledged for contributing “reagents” and since the article in which this strain was originally described was cited. The editor disregarded the fact that that citation was done in entirely different context. The editor also disregarded the fact that the same PLoS article described the source of a plasmid (PCYC1-lacI-GFP) in the same M & M section in addition to acknowledging the contributor.
Though I am not sure that the decision taken by the editor is the best possible one, particularly because the added note by the author would be visible only to exceptionally curious readers, I respect the editor’s decision.