The press release from the Dept. of Energy Joint Genome Institute (USA) sounds really cool [Massive reanalysis of genome data solves case of the lethal genes].
It is better to be looked over than overlooked, Mae West supposedly said. These are words of wisdom for genome data-miners of today. Data that goes unnoticed, despite its widespread availability, can reveal extraordinary insights to the discerning eye. Such is the case of a systematic analysis by the U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (DOE JGI) of the massive backlog of microbial genome sequences from the public databases. The survey identified genes that kill the bacteria employed in the sequencing process and throw a microbial wrench in the works. It also offers a possible strategy for the discovery of new antibiotics. These findings are published in the Oct. 19 edition of the journal Science.But it's not true. This article was not published in the Oct. 19 edition of Science. You can see for yourself [Science Oct. 19, 2007].
In nature, promiscuous microbes share genetic information so readily that using genes to infer their species position on the evolutionary tree of life was thought to be futile. Now, researchers at DOE JGI have characterized barriers to this gene transfer by identifying genes that kill the recipient bacterium upon transfer, regardless of the type of bacterial donor. These lethal genes also provide better reference points for building phylogenic trees—the means to verify evolutionary relationships between organisms.
Instead it was posted on ScienceXpress, Publication ahead of print. Access to those articles is restricted. I can't see them even though the University of Toronto has an excellent system for getting articles from journals. Can anyone else get this article?
This really
7 comments :
This issue reminds me of one of my biggest literature-surfing pet peeves, which is also caused by Science Magazine. What's up with needing a upgraded subscription for Science "classic" papers. Every other journal seems to think it's important to provide these cornerstones of science completely free of subscription, while Science thinks people should not just have to pay, but pay even more...
Maybe it's because they sell 24-hour access to the article for $10. It also appears to be available to people with personal subscriptions (though I'm not sure if that's true). Probably aimed at trying to squeeze some money out of all of us freebooters who depend on institutional subscriptions. Not that our university libraries aren't paying through the nose for things like this...
"The content you requested is not included in your institutional subscription and requires a AAAS member subscription to this site or Science Pay per Article purchase."
Ouch. I'm wounded.
@#$!
A bloody mess is Restricted Access
On the body of science an ugly abscess
Let us free, let us see
Let Restricted Access take recess
And subscribe now to Open Access
Yeah, Science express is a really hard one to get hold of. My current institution doesn't subscribe, despite generally excellent online collections. Previous universities have been in a similar boat.
It's particularly odd as it will be out in Science relatively soon, so why the extra fuss.
My university subscribes (University of Oslo), so I've sent a pdf to Moran.
I'm at UBC, and I do have access to Science express.
Post a Comment