Enhanced comment feature has been enabled for all readers including those not logged in. Click on the Discussion tab (top left) to add or reply to discussions.
Talk:Gene Edited Animal Data: Difference between revisions
From BIF Guidelines Wiki
Latest comment: 16 October by Wsnelling in topic Comments on new content
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
: Note that the only new part to this page is the small section I added Gene Edited Animals in Genetic Evaluations. The rest is original to what Alison wrote and we approved. We can certainly make the edits suggested but also provide comments, if any, on the new material. | : Note that the only new part to this page is the small section I added Gene Edited Animals in Genetic Evaluations. The rest is original to what Alison wrote and we approved. We can certainly make the edits suggested but also provide comments, if any, on the new material. | ||
===Re: Comments on new content -- [[User:Mrolf|Mrolf]] ([[User talk:Mrolf|talk]]) 16:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)=== | |||
: One question I have is relative to the old info. How are we defining "novel DNA"? To me, that suggests we're not or couldn't introduce DNA from another species, only things already existing in bovine (which is suggested later in that paragraph), but also later in the paragraph, it references transgenes, which to me are novel DNA. But I guess it could be referencing unintended DNA insertions (like DNA surrounding the intended edit if a template is provided). Do we need to clarify? | |||
Revision as of 16:03, 21 November 2024
Comments on new content
- I forced the TOC to be the 1st thing since the intro was long. Good intro
- Should information about the effort/status of any government approvals be included in the data?
- Should we rename the page "Gene Edited Animal Data"? That way it sorts to "G" in the master TOC
All good stuff. Bruce L. Golden (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Should the recommendation to genotype offspring be extended to descendants, who may carry the edit? Wsnelling (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense. But how far down the pedigree do you go? Recommendations? Bruce L. Golden (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- From a computing perspective does it matter how deep you go? Snewman (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- How about progeny of edit carriers? No need to worry about further tracking descendants who did not inherit the edit. Wsnelling (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- From a computing perspective does it matter how deep you go? Snewman (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense. But how far down the pedigree do you go? Recommendations? Bruce L. Golden (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Re: Comments on new content -- Mspangler (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note that the only new part to this page is the small section I added Gene Edited Animals in Genetic Evaluations. The rest is original to what Alison wrote and we approved. We can certainly make the edits suggested but also provide comments, if any, on the new material.
Re: Comments on new content -- Mrolf (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- One question I have is relative to the old info. How are we defining "novel DNA"? To me, that suggests we're not or couldn't introduce DNA from another species, only things already existing in bovine (which is suggested later in that paragraph), but also later in the paragraph, it references transgenes, which to me are novel DNA. But I guess it could be referencing unintended DNA insertions (like DNA surrounding the intended edit if a template is provided). Do we need to clarify?
