Changes

::::: The "meat" of the paper is this, and at a minimum the data should be released for it (pp. 2-3 from paper):

::::: The "meat" of the paper is this, and at a minimum the data should be released for it (pp. 2-3 from paper):

:::::: Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations  are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. [DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?] Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium [DATA?], the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment. [DATA?]  These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of citrate in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density.  (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) [DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED?] After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).[HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE?] A number [DATA?] of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all [DATA?] were Ara, T5-sensitive,  and T6-resistant, as expected (2) [DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS?]. DNA seqencing also showed [DATA?] that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all [DATA?] of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant [THIS CONCLUSION NEEDS TO BE CHECKED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DATA, WHICH I DOUBT OCCURRED IN THE BRIEF PEER REVIEW OF THIS PAPER]

:::::: Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations  are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. [DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?] Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium [DATA?], the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment. [DATA?]  These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of citrate in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density.  (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) [DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED?] After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).[HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE?] A number [DATA?] of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all [DATA?] were Ara, T5-sensitive,  and T6-resistant, as expected (2) [DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS?]. DNA sequencing also showed [DATA?] that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all [DATA?] of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant [THIS CONCLUSION NEEDS TO BE CHECKED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DATA, WHICH I DOUBT OCCURRED IN THE BRIEF PEER REVIEW OF THIS PAPER]

::::: Note, by the way, how the opponents of data disclosure seem to have no idea about what data Lenski actually has, which raises further questions about the merits of the conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Note, by the way, how the opponents of data disclosure seem to have no idea about what data Lenski actually has, which raises further questions about the merits of the conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If you're really interested in monitoring the quotidien details of these experiments, that falls outside of the scope of what PNAS and professional standards would require Lenski to release, I believe.  You're not asking to re-analyze data so much as to oversee the entire experiment for fraud.  This would require giving you all of Lenski's graduate students' lab notebooks for an indefinite period of time, which would be quite disruptive, and as I said probably wouldn't even yield the level of data you seem to want.  In this case your best bet is to contact MSU and ask for a comprehensive review of Lenski's lab and his notes for this experiment.  But without any evidence to point to said fraud, they will certainly deny your request for oversight.  Your expectations here just aren't in line with professional standards in the field in the absence of any evidence of fraud.  -- [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] 10:49, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If you're really interested in monitoring the quotidien details of these experiments, that falls outside of the scope of what PNAS and professional standards would require Lenski to release, I believe.  You're not asking to re-analyze data so much as to oversee the entire experiment for fraud.  This would require giving you all of Lenski's graduate students' lab notebooks for an indefinite period of time, which would be quite disruptive, and as I said probably wouldn't even yield the level of data you seem to want.  In this case your best bet is to contact MSU and ask for a comprehensive review of Lenski's lab and his notes for this experiment.  But without any evidence to point to said fraud, they will certainly deny your request for oversight.  Your expectations here just aren't in line with professional standards in the field in the absence of any evidence of fraud.  -- [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] 10:49, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

----

----