Ghost band (was Re: How to get a single stranded DNA as long as 2-3kb?)

[peter]

On Jun 13, 6:22 am, "Jose de las Heras" <jose... from tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "peter" <peter.ianak... from gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1181706120.980447.87740 from x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 11:23 pm, Nick Theodorakis <nick_theodora... from hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> peter wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> > Jose, Why do you think I should believe to a paper from the 70s?  Do
> >> > you know how many crappy papers were published in the past that are
> >> > pure BS when we look at retrospect....
> >> > my2c
>
> >> I can't tell if you're kidding or not, but in case you aren't, in the
> >> 1970's there were papers describing the use and manipulation of plasmids
> >> as cloning vectors, discovery and characterization of restriction
> >> enzymes, DNA sequencing, discovery and characterization of reverse
> >> transciptase, discovery of introns, ...
>
> >> Nick
>
> >> --
> >> Nick Theodorakis
> >> nick_theodora... from hotmail.com
> >> contact form:http://theodorakis.net/contact.html
>
> > You don't get it too Nick, besides the good papers in the 70s , 80s,
> > 90s and  00s, there is a bulk of BS that was published in a countless
> > of BS journals. The only think that came out of these papers were
> > countless of clueless PhDs trying to prove next "type V DNA" .
>
> I *think* you may have misinterpret what I said.
> Type "V" DNA is not in the same category of what we call type A, B and Z...
> From what I remember it has to do with the observation of multiple bands
> when running an uncut plasmid in an agarose gel, and figuring out what they
> were and why they run how they run. We normally talk about the closed
> covalent circles, the relaxed forms, nicked... these were defined as type I,
> II... etc... (can't remember which one was which, exactly). The nomenclature
> didn't stick, and it was just a way to give names to something they
> observed, back in the 70s... and what do you know? even right now in June
> 2007!
> The type V described was an unusual form, which they could produce in high
> pH conditions... Type V or ghost band or whatever you want to call it...
> they seem to be the same thing.
>
> I worry when some scientists are so quick to diss observations and results
> from other labs based on pure and simple prejudice.
> I prefer to read first, and think, and then keep or discard. Otherwise I
> might as well have become a priest.
>
> Jose

Guys, I think we lost focus again, lets refrain what was the original
question - someone want to produce 2-3 kb ssDNA  out of a 3 kb clone
in a plasmid. If we can add something to that - great,  if not - lets
close this topic and move on. There is no argument how many great
discoveries were made in the past,  and the fact that they represent
probably less than 0.1% of all the papers published. It would be
interesting if someone spend time and effort to see how many of the
papers in the 70s, 80s and 90s stand up to the 2007 standards, how
many were miss-readings of the facts (honest) , and how many were made-
up science.
my2c