Jump to content

Talk:Cloning vector

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Appleuseryu (talk | contribs) at 19:18, 3 November 2016 (Concerning the diction "overhang" in the introductory paragraph). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Wikiproject MCB

Cloning vs Expression Vector; Round 1

This article says the main purpose of a cloning vector is for colled expression of a particular gene, but if that is the case, how does it differ from an expression vector? --Username132 21:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

expression vectors are more tightly controlled and are posed to make optimum amounts of product such as the manufacturing of insulin.

Cloning vector, vector DNA, expression vector

There sure are a lot of stub "vector" articles to do with genetic engineering. Perhaps they should be merged, or at least reorganised? -- Hongooi 06:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrasting different vectors

I think it would be appropriate to contrast the practical applications of the common vectors on this page, briefly summing up which would be preferred in what situation. Akita86 (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

template

In the template there are cloning vectors which do not fit in well will the list: Could someone make a new template? or list waht to put in it--Squidonius (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the diction "overhang" in the introductory paragraph

It is the first time I have heard of the word overhang. It is only after some verifications that I have found out that it meant "sticky ends".

I would like someone to confirm if what I think is right, so we can make the intro a little bit clearer :)

--Appleuseryu (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects in a week, I will then assume everything is fine and include the word sticky ends.

--Appleuseryu (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]