Timeline for Splice in with CRISPR/Cas
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 2015 at 19:49 | comment | added | cagliari2005 | @TMOTTM Now you can't ;) | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 19:48 | comment | added | TMOTTM | I don't know, I was just wondering.. anyway, i can still see the figures, just in case. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 19:48 | history | edited | cagliari2005 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 118 characters in body
|
| Sep 23, 2015 at 19:47 | comment | added | cagliari2005 | @TMOTTM It is not plagiarism as I am citing the source but regarding copyright infringements I think you are right in pointing that out. As those figures comes from Nature Biotechnology I am not supposed to publicly post them (I actually removed them) - see Nature policy. If they were coming from open-source journals (say PLoS one) then you can as they are publicly available. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 18:59 | comment | added | TMOTTM | Just a side-question: is it fine from a copyright perspective to publicly post diagrams from articles? | |
| Apr 26, 2015 at 18:06 | vote | accept | Robertos | ||
| Apr 5, 2015 at 13:09 | history | bounty ended | Robertos | ||
| Apr 2, 2015 at 14:39 | comment | added | Robertos | @cagliari2005, wow, thank you!! Really great. | |
| Apr 2, 2015 at 14:24 | comment | added | user137 | Looks like they also used single stranded DNA oligos for some of their short insertions (see supplementary table 7), consistent with my speculation based answer below. The longer inserts are still double stranded. Would be interesting to see if long single stranded DNA would insert more efficiently too. Just glad to see I was speculating in the right direction. | |
| Apr 2, 2015 at 6:09 | comment | added | canadianer | Interesting answer. | |
| Apr 2, 2015 at 5:57 | history | edited | cagliari2005 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 180 characters in body
|
| Apr 2, 2015 at 5:50 | history | answered | cagliari2005 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |