I have a new paper in the new Open Access journal Gigascience: GigaScience | Full text | Badomics words and the power and peril of the ome-meme. It is basically a text version of my obsession with #badomics words.
It was inspired by a paper also in this first issue of Gigascience The Biological Observation Matrix (BIOM) format or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the ome-ome by Daniel McDonald, Jose C Clemente, Justin Kuczynski, Jai Rideout, Jesse Stombaugh, Doug Wendel, Andreas Wilke, Susan Huse, John Hufnagle, Folker Meyer, Rob Knight, and J Caporaso.
For more on my obsession with badomics words see some of these earlier posts:
Friday, July 13, 2012
My new paper in #Gigascience: #Badomics words and the power and peril of the ome-meme
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Most recent post
Panoramas from the past ...
In 1997, my then girlfriend (now wife) and I went camping in Death Valley. It was our fourth trip there to camp in grad. school. I brought m...
Just got this press release by email. I am sick of receiving dozens of unsolicited press releases, especially those in topics not related ...
New article out from the Eisen Lab: Isolation and sequence-based characterization of a koala symbiont: Lonepinella koalarumSee Isolation and sequence-based characterization of a koala symbiont: Lonepinella koalarum Paper based on PhD thesis work of Katie Dahlha...
I have a new friend in Google Scholar Updates I have written about the Updates system before and if you want more information please see...
In the aricle you write:ReplyDelete
In 1920, “Verbreitung und Ursache der Parthenogenesis im Pflanzen- und Tierreiche”–a landmark book by German botanist Hans Winkler–was published Translating the title into English yields “Spread and cause of pathogenesis in plant and animal kingdoms”. An interesting book, no doubt (and one that is available to read online thanks to the Biodiversity Heritage Library ), but it is not a fascination with pathogenesis that has kept the book in the limelight for almost 100 years. Instead, it is one passage on page 165 that is critical:
Surely, the book is about parthenogenesis -- that is, asexual reproduction, rather than pathogenesis, no? I know that's irrelevant to the point being made but…
that I will assign to "an editing mistake ..." ... gonna have to get that fixed ...Delete
although I note my statement is technically correct --- " but it is not a fascination with pathogenesis that has kept the book in the limelight for almost 100 years."Delete