R.E. sites in Vectors

Chris Yost cyost at acs.ucalgary.ca
Mon Apr 24 11:19:56 EST 1995


This message may seem like bitching however I need to vent.  Is it not
resonable to ask that when someone creates a useful vector construct that
the include all of the restriction sites in the published paper. Ok, all
the sites may be too much, especially exotic strange cutters.  However,  I
think that at least all the sites that are in the M.C.S of pBluescript and
puc derivatives should be included.  Especially if the construct that was
made is a tool that can be used to make several new constructs.  

If a researcher works hard to make these useful vector constructs than why
leave it incomplete when the work is published.  Including all the common
M.C.S. sites in the vector would help future researchers GREATLY and SAVE
time in the long run.  If this is too much to ask then at least it should
be stated in the paper that the published vector has not been restriction
characterized using all the common multiple cloning site enzymes.  What is
especially frustrating is when some of the sites are included but the
researchers do not state that this is an incomplete restriction
characterization.

Thank you for allowing me to vent.  I feel much better.  Now I will go
back to work and plan a new cloning strategy.

Chris Yost
cyost at acs.ucalgary.ca

-- 

                              



More information about the Methods mailing list