Talk:Transfection

message: This article states that transfection differs from transformation in that no integration takes place.  I was told that "transfection" was coined because the term "transformation" was coined with two independent meanings at about the same time (the other being the origin of a cancerous cell line), and that "transfection" generally took over in those in eukaryotic fields, esp. medical and animal related, while transformation stuck in the prokaryotic field.  The person who told me this has, of course, talked complete nonsense plenty of times before, but can anybody clear it up?  Joe D (t) 16:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are right, this is rubbish.  I'm not sure of the history your friend talks about, but these days transfection generally means eukaryotic (or at least mammalian) cells and transformation means bacteria.  It has nothing to do with transient or stable uptake of nucleic acids (in fact the article contradicts itself later when it talks about transient and stable transfection)Mammal4 13:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I have suggested merging these, something which I think I'm in favour of, though I'm open to persuasion otherwise.  It appears the major difference between the two is the name, while the actual protocols and purpose differ only in the details.  It would certainly make sense to have a proper explanation of the history and terminology in one place.  Joe D (t) 21:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I count 7-8 opposes, and Joe seems to have originally been only weakly in favour.  Solid consensus; I'll remove both tags.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Transformation]]?

message: Impalefection is listed twice in the list. I think it should be only in the particle-asisted list, since it uses the nanofibres. HlTo 05:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Impalefection

message: Changed "most applications of transfection" to "some" considering that all manufacturing/research stable clones originate from transfections. Added reference to episomal  replication to clarify plasmid dilution. Could extend to discuss its effect on transfection efficiency if article expands into more detail.
The next paragraph may need some clarification: 1) Integration rates can be rather high  2) Not all selection agents are "toxins", as in the case of the GS-CHO cell line which can be selected simply by the absence of glutamine.
It would be nice to see the introduction expanded to describe the purpose of transfections. I have some decent public domain graphics showing steps in transient transfection protocol that would greatly help the casual/inexperienced reader. I'll add them to my page (soon) for review, feedback.
Joe Jirka (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Section:Stable and transient transfection

message: This article could include a section on the uses and importance of transfection. Many scientists, especially those in the biopharmaceuticals industry use this method to see if cells will grow using DNA they subcloned in the lab. This method allows scientists to study and control gene expression, conduct mutational analyses, investigate the effects of gene expression on cell growth, etc. There isn't enough information on the usefulness of this method in science and medical world today.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wang.3643 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  agreed and with the importance of liposomal transfection this section needs to be linked to the main article. Also are these lipid nanoparticles the same as lipofectamine? If so there needs to be some mention that cytotoxicity exists because several newspapers are reporting there is no cytotoxicity which is never true in the lab. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_lipid_nanoparticle  68.134.68.237 (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: Wondering why my input about FuGENE was deleted by Jytdog (talk). It's the method we use in our lab the most, and it doesn't fit in any other chemical category (it's not lipofection, neither DEAE or calcium phosphate), so I don't consider as spam to mention it as other method to use. Until yesterday, this system even had its own wiki article with good references (you can see it here), but today I can see someone has deleted it. It was really useful for biotechnologists like me to know the mode of operation of this technique so used, and I think it should be developed, not deleted. Right not, if you don't care and until he explain the reason for this, I will undo his "undo". To consider a method as spam only because it is done by a commercial house is unjustified; Practically every method is developed by a commercial house.  --Sir Electron (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: it would be great to have content about what "fugene" actually is and it works, source to independent sources.  The way it was done before was spam.  The current content doesn't say what it is nor  how it works. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that, that was exactly the first reason for which I came Wikipedia, because I wanted to know how it works. Right now, I haven't been able to find this information anywhere; but preccisely for this I think the article was useful. Maybe incomplete, yes; but that's the way Wikipedia works, today is incomplete, tomorrow someone gets new information and add it. But if we consider spam all the incomplete information and delete it, there is no way to the whole article be completed someday. Sir Electron (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: not being able to find reliable independent sources means that it probably shouldn't be discussed in WP.  People can already go to the company website and read about it there. Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: New methods of transfection

message: This method is listed among the techniques in this article's 'Methods' section, one of the five of the seven physical methods that have their own article. I'm having a little difficulty deciding whether it reaches notability and would appreciate better informed opinions. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impalefection]]