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

[Jose de las Heras]

"peter" <peter.ianakiev 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