Talk:Transcription activator-like effector

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Dcbennett2 (talk · contribs) has been paid by SciWri Services on behalf of Cellectis. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Paid editing declared here

Boch et al[edit]

An article by Boch & Schornack detailing the code discovery and original images depicting handwritten notes and how it was deciphered can be found in: IS-MPMI Reporter 1/2010, page 3ff. http://issuu.com/scisoc/docs/reporter1001?mode=embed&layout=http://skin.issuu.com/v/light/layout.xml&showFlipBtn=true

Maybe it is worth referring to it?

Also, TAL effectors are also present in the plant pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum as described by Heuer et al, 2007. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/73/13/4379

Maybe worth including as well?

Great suggestions! I added both, although I couldn't find a reference that stated the homologous proteins in Ralstonia were classified in the same family as the more common Xanthomonas TAL effectors so I just said they were similar. If they are commonly classified in the same family feel free to change this. I also didn't know quite how to site the IS-MPMI reporter article so I included it as an external link. Once again, feel free to tweak the reference. I also added a reference to the Morbitzer et al. paper that was published after I wrote the first version of the article. ScienceGeekling (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a recent paper (22 Dec 2010) in Nature Biotech that shows successful application of custom TAL effector technology in human cells by scientists from Sangamo BioSciences. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nbt.1755.html Maybe worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.71.34 (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding this. This reference has been added to the article. ScienceGeekling (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user with IP# 204.9.220.36 recently added some information about a commercial entity that was written with the tone of an advertisement. I edited the material to obtain a Neutral point of view as per the fundamental principles of wikipedia. I also removed material that was not verifiable (e.g. unspecified details of an upcoming service), moved the external link to the end of the article as per policy on external links, and removed information not relevant to the article (e.g. the stock ticker symbol of the commercial entity or information about its parent company). I'm happy to discuss further if you think I have incorrectly applied any of Wikipedia's standard policies. ScienceGeekling (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

great article[edit]

I think it's great article, but I really miss some pictures. Regards, Ana 193.2.96.113 (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate section for deletion[edit]

The last section Target Genes is inscrutable to most people, and doesn't add anything to the page. It feels like a tacked-on non sequitur added by someone who's researching a very specific niche of the topic. Imagine if we gave a section like that to every set of effector targets.

173.25.54.191 (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CITEVAR[edit]

@Invasive Spices: What WP:CITEVAR says is it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor. The very first version of this article had 6 out 6 citations that followed the Vancouver author style. My edits restored the style used by the first major contributor. CITEVAR also states imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles is generally considered helpful. After my edits, there was a consistent citation style. After your reversion, there was a mix. My edits are completely consistent with CITEVAR, yours are not. Boghog (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Boghog: Same old stuff. At least you've begun using real quotes from WP:CITEVAR instead of simply, boldly making things up.

Nonetheless, you lied. Again.

Unsurprisingly, as you've done in the past, you've claimed that the "first major edit" requires |vauthors=. Unsurprisingly, as before, that's not true. Shockingly enough, if someone is to actually check, it turns out that less than 100% of articles have |vauthors= as their normal style. A lot less. In fact none of those I've seen you obsess over so far. This article, as all the others, does not have a single |vauthors= in its "first major edit."

But of course you're counting on anyone who reads this exchange to not actually read the edits involved.

In fact the first introduction of |vauthors= was in 2016.

You have repeatedly bullied other editors by threatening them that the addition of citations in any style other than |vauthors= is "disruptive editing." You try politely lying to people first, but if you meet any resistance you immediately hit back, hoping to make people step back in fear. In reality, CITEVAR's stated overarching point is that citations must happen. They can be imperfect, they can get fixed later, they can be in any style. But verifiability is the point. You are engaged in a widespread vandalism and edit war campaign, aimed towards removing information from citations and making them less informative. I still can't even guess why you insist on doing this. For this you have drawn widespread condemnation across WP. You are constantly involved in a multifront edit war against a large number of other editors. Stop.

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

Invasive Spices (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Invasive Spices: CITEVAR not only applies to raw wiki text, but more importantly to how citations are rendered. The first major contributor to this article rendered citation authors in the Vancouver system style. The contributor used |author= parameter. Since then, storing multiple authors in |author= or |authors= has been deprecated. Citation template parameters get deprecated all the time in favor of a replacement parameter. What has not been deprecated is Vancouver style authors. The recommended way of updating Vancouver style authors is to replace |author(s)= with |vauthors= which preserves the way authors are rendered, but at the same time, produces clean meta-data. Finally, please assume good faith and drop the personal attacks. Comment on the edits, not the editors. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least you're on to different word games. Vandalism will be reverted. It's as simple as that. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No word games, but rather well established guidelines that do not constitute vandalism. Boghog (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]