Asked this question on Twitter and thought I would share answers here via Storify. I am putting it below the fold to allow people to avoid the Storify embed if they want to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most recent post
A ton to be thankful for -- here is one part of that - all the acknowledgement sections from my scholarly papers
So - it is another Thanksgiving Day and in addition to thinking about family, and football, and Alice's Restaurant, I also think a lot a...
-
I have a hardback version of The Bird Way by Jennifer Ackerma n but had not gotten around to reading it alas. But now I am listening to th...
-
There is a spreading surge of PDF sharing going on in relation to a tribute to Aaron Swartz who died a few days ago. For more on Aaron ... -
Wow. Just wow. And not in a good way. Just got an email invitation to a meeting. The meeting is " THE FIRST ANNUAL WINTER Q-BIO ...
I have seen these papers cited when correcting for rRNA gene copy number:
ReplyDeleteKlappenbach JA, Saxman PR, Cole JR, Schmidt TM (2001) rrndb: the
Ribosomal RNA Operon Copy Number Database. Nucl. Acids Res., 29,
181-184.
Lee ZM-P, Bussema C, Schmidt TM (2009) rrnDB: documenting the number
of rRNA and tRNA genes in bacteria and archaea. Nucleic Acids Res, 37,
D489-D493.
However, I wonder if anyone has ever thought about how ploidy would affect 16S rDNA qPCR? For example:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016392
If some species typically have 20 genome copies per cell and others have 1 genome copy per cell, this would make conversion of gene copy numbers to cells pretty much impossible unless you measure the ploidy for every species in your system. And if you don't do the conversion, then what do gene copy numbers mean?
Thanks .. and agree that ploidy could be a big big big problem.
Delete