List of Biological Databases

• National Center of Biotechnology Information - NCBI [1]
• Omictools [2]

- Kurop1n (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2020‎

In retrospect, it does seem rather inappropriate for me to have posted what DGG deleted in this section, so I wanted to apologize to those here (re this discussion: User talk:Seppi333#October 2020). My bad. I hope everyone can forgive my lack of forethought and stupidity for committing a faux pas. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PLOS Genetics has just published a new Topic Page. As part of this, an article was drafted, peer reviewed and published in PLOS Genetics and has now been copied over to the RNA-directed DNA methylation page. Comments and suggestions welcome! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 08:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A new editor is expanding this but in the process he is introducing a promotional tone.

I have reverted the edits,[3] but it would be useful to have a subject-matter expert dig through for anything salvageable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom (LT): Thanks! I think that's a sensible solution. It's easier to go through WP:PR and post a note at this talkpage if it's relevant to the scope. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you think it's useful :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I watch both, but I'm not sure why someone would post on one rather than the other. Perhaps we discussed this in the past during the big merger, but should we just archive the rest of the contents at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology and redirect that talk page here so there's just one place for folks to talk about molecular biology? Ajpolino (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino: I support archiving and redirecting the MCB discussion page. One of the aims of this page was to move towards greater consolidation of the pages listed as taskforces so continuing that centralisation is useful. I actually think the same is true for the other WP:MOLBIO taskforce talkpages to this page and also the move new participants to in stead join this list. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done For MCB.Ajpolino (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Immune system has been proposed to run TFA on the mainpage as the COVID vaccine is launched: please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month#Immune system. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

00:21, 26 October 2020‎ 2601:985:380:afe0:575:447d:240d:24aa made a very specific addition to the introducing chapter of Assay. I think it is good will, but i do not think that it really improves the article. If the information is of encyclopedic relevance, i think it should be transferred to a more specific place. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree it's not relevant for the general article and have reverted. Amkilpatrick (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have a moderate-advanced working knowledge with at least some applied experience in this area? Have some questions pertaining to a protocol we've developed. Just looking for some additional feedback.

@DGG: I have a sufficient understanding of this subject area to expand that article now. Will do so after we get past certain milestones sometime within the next 4-8 months. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an open question, are there any microbial taxa that are hard to lyse besides gram-positive bacteria, yeast, and spore-forming bacteria? Primarily asking in relation to protozoa and viruses. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi members, I am requesting here for a DYK review of Template:Did you know nominations/Nucleoside-modified messenger RNA if anyone interested. I am posting the request regarding modRNA DYK as COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 has been approved for EUA in Great Britain, Bahrain whereas mRNA-1273 is also expected to get approval soon in US, Europe and both are based on Nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) technology. The DYK can be scheduled for early weeks of December 2020 if passed. I have also notified the same at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 09:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would be great if one can provide an image like File:MRNA-interaction.png from mRNA so that it can also be used as a lead DYK. — Amkgp 💬 09:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amkgp: I can help out with the image if I've a few examples to work from (it's pretty outside my core area). Is something like the right hand side of this diagram the sort of thing that's be useful? Most available diagrams, like this one, are just for unmodified RNA vaccines. Is the process especially different, or is the process the same? In the #Applications section, it should be made clear what the significance is of the modified nucleosides in the mRNA vaccine. Is it just stability, or do they affect its interactions? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 22:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Evolution and evolvability: I think right hand side of this diagram would be useful. Actually, I do not have medical or molecular biology background (I am from engineering background with interests in medical application) so I cannot comment anything about Is the process especially different, or is the process the same? OR stability, or do they affect its interactions. I took help and suggestions from an expert (see here) and added File:Ribosome mRNA translation en.svg in the article modRNA and in the Template:Did you know nominations/Nucleoside-modified messenger RNA. I was looking for an image which can show how modRNA is used for the new COVID-19 vaccines and Tissue regeneration. — Amkgp 💬 17:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amkgp: no worries! I'll make a version of the mature review figure]. I'll see about updating File:Ribosome mRNA translation en.svg whilst I'm at it. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 22:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme inhibitor has turned into quite a wreck since Tim Vickers stopped editing; unless someone is able to bring it to WP:WIAFA standard (and fix the image layout mess, too), the article should be submitted to WP:Featured article review. It was last reviewed in 2006, and is the oldest article from this Project at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020. Please place notes for article improvements needed at Talk:Enzyme inhibitor#WP:URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme kinetics

Similar for Talk:Enzyme kinetics#WP:URFA/2020 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]