,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
#zebrafish tweeps - at the PI meeting this year, we had a very heated discussion about using F0 "crispants" as data in publications. Some felt these would be as bad as MO and less easy to control (off-target issues, multiple insertions/deletions, etc). /1
Others felt they were ok for seeing if you were on the right track with something, but that you would need to make the stable line regardless. Either the support for F0 crispant data was silent and drowned out by the negatives. Or there wasn't any support. /2
Now we have a reviewer requesting multiple "crispants" as additional data for a manuscript. Given the discussion at the PI meeting, I'm reluctant to agree to this, in part because it would reflect poorly on us to publish something considered poor science. /3
So I wanted to check if people on Twitter had thoughts about using F0 crispant data in publications and/or how to address the reviewer's request? I don't want to take the times to make new lines to backup what we have already shown quite well. /4x
