| ²é¿´: 835 | »Ø¸´: 16 | ||||
| µ±Ç°Ö÷ÌâÒѾ´æµµ¡£ | ||||
| µ±Ç°Ö»ÏÔʾÂú×ãÖ¸¶¨Ìõ¼þµÄ»ØÌû£¬µã»÷ÕâÀï²é¿´±¾»°ÌâµÄËùÓлØÌû | ||||
biomysteryͳæ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
|
[½»Á÷]
°ïæ¿´Ò»ÏÂÉó¸åÒâ¼û
|
|||
|
ÕâÊÇÒ»¸öÀíÂÛÄ£Ð͵Ť×÷£¬Ö÷ÒªÊÇÊýֵģÄ⡣ͶµÄÊÇbiophysical journal µÚÒ»¸öÉó¸åÈ˸øÁËÕýÃæÆÀ¼Û¡£¶ø±à¼Ëµ¿´¹ýÎÄÕÂÁË£¬¸æËßÎÒÎÄÕÂÊÇacceptable£¬Ö»Òª»Ø´ðreviewersµÄÎÊÌâ¡£×îºó½á¹ûÊÇСÐÞ¡£ µ«ÒªÃüµÄÊǵڶþ¸öÉó¸åÈË ¸ÃÉó¸åÈËÇ°ÃæÎ´¶Ô±¾ÎÄÓÐÈÎºÎÆÀ¼Û¡£Ö»ÊǼòµ¥³ÂÊöÁËÎÒµÄÎÄÕÂ×öÁËʲôÊÂÇé¡£ ×îºóÒ»¶Î£º The main weakness of this manuscript is that it does not provide a clear basis for accepting or rejecting the proposed model or other recent models for the clock. It would strengthen the manuscript to describe whether there are any experimental observations that are explained by this model and not by other models, or vice versa. It would help to know whether some models perform better in predicting the perturbations to clock output from genetic experiments, such as mutations, over-expression, or reduced expression of clock proteins. If the existing body of data is equally well explained by all competing models, is there a new experiment that could definitively select one of the models? Although it is not necessary for such an experiment to be included in the manuscript, it seems important to describe a feasible experiment of this type. ´ó¼Ò°ïæ¿´¿´£¬µ½µ×Ôõô¸Ä¸Ä£¿ [ Last edited by biomystery on 2009-8-25 at 07:37 ] |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸»¦9£¬326ÇóÉúÎïѧµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
»¯¹¤Ñ§Ë¶294·Ö£¬Çóµ¼Ê¦ÊÕÁô
ÒѾÓÐ24È˻ظ´
085600²ÄÁÏÓ뻯¹¤329·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
284Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
¸´ÊÔµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ18È˻ظ´
310Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ16È˻ظ´
274Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
245Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
Óб¬ÁÏ£¬Ò»¸öÇàÄê½ÌʦÂô·¿µÃ400Íò£¬È»ºó»»ÁËÒ»¸öËÄÇàñ×Ó
ÒѾÓÐ11È˻ظ´
290Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ15È˻ظ´
jsz007
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (ÕýʽдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 5139.5
- É¢½ð: 105
- ºì»¨: 3
- Ìû×Ó: 728
- ÔÚÏß: 608.9Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 735632
- ×¢²á: 2009-03-30
- רҵ: ½ðÊô²ÄÁϵÄÁ¦Ñ§ÐÐΪ
9Â¥2009-08-25 08:35:06
pitlord999
½ð³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 1447.3
- ºì»¨: 7
- Ìû×Ó: 284
- ÔÚÏß: 24.4Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 822142
- ×¢²á: 2009-08-04
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: ¹¤³ÌÈÈÎïÀíÏà¹Ø½»²æÁìÓò
¡ï
biomystery(½ð±Ò+1,VIP+0): 8-25 07:24
biomystery(½ð±Ò+1,VIP+0): 8-25 07:24
| ÖÐÐÄ˼Ïë¾ÍÊÇ˵ÄãÖ»ÔÚÎÄÖÐÁгöÁËÄãµÄÊý¾Ý£¬µ«ÊÇûÓжÔÊý¾Ý½øÐÐ×ã¹»µÄ·ÖÎö¡£¸ù¾ÝËüµÄÒâ¼û£¬ÊÔ×ÅÓÃÄã×Ô¼ºµÄÄ£ÐͶÔÊý¾Ý½øÐнâÊÍ£¬²¢ÓëÆäËûÈ˵ÄÄ£ÐͽøÐбÈÕÕ¡£ |
2Â¥2009-08-24 23:19:28
liujunhero
гæ (ÎÄѧ̩¶·)
- Ó¦Öú: 496 (˶ʿ)
- ¹ó±ö: 1.109
- ½ð±Ò: 216791
- É¢½ð: 2000
- ºì»¨: 244
- ɳ·¢: 1
- Ìû×Ó: 92937
- ÔÚÏß: 1579Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 480354
- ×¢²á: 2007-12-15
- רҵ: ʳƷ¿ÆÑ§
¡ï
biomystery(½ð±Ò+1,VIP+0): 8-25 07:24
biomystery(½ð±Ò+1,VIP+0): 8-25 07:24
| ¾ÍÊÇÄãÎÄÕµÄÖÐÐIJ»Ã÷È·£¬¼´Äã×öµÄʵÑé×îÖյõ½Ò»¸öʲôÑùµÄ½á¹û£¬ÓÐʲôÒâÒåºÍ¼ÛÖµ£¬¿´À´»¹ÒªÉî¶ÈÍÚ¾òϵݡ |
3Â¥2009-08-25 06:58:00
nono2009
³¬¼¶°æÖ÷ (ÎÄѧ̩¶·)
No gains, no pains.
-

ר¼Ò¾Ñé: +21105 - SEPI: 10
- Ó¦Öú: 28684 (Ժʿ)
- ¹ó±ö: 513.911
- ½ð±Ò: 2555230
- É¢½ð: 27828
- ºì»¨: 2148
- ɳ·¢: 66666
- Ìû×Ó: 1602255
- ÔÚÏß: 65200.9Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 827383
- ×¢²á: 2009-08-13
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: ¹¤³ÌÈÈÎïÀíÓëÄÜÔ´ÀûÓÃ
- ¹ÜϽ: ¿ÆÑмҳﱸίԱ»á
¡ï
biomystery(½ð±Ò+1,VIP+0): 8-25 07:24
biomystery(½ð±Ò+1,VIP+0): 8-25 07:24
| The reviewer itself is not very specific... |
4Â¥2009-08-25 07:08:00














»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥