Replies

We couldn't get published because, one of the reviewers said, his paper had done so much more work that we had not "addressed". We said that that other work rested upon results that couldn't be replicated with either his actual DNA or with his published sequence of that DNA and that all that was necessary to do was to demonstrate that.

That sounds like a raw deal. Fight it.

That sounds like a raw deal. Fight it.

Thanks. Well, let's just say that was a wasted couple years of a post-doc fellowship in a really, really unpleasant laboratory environment, though the confocal microscopy was fun. The funny thing is when I was trying to get in touch with this particular researcher I called his university and asked the department secretary if he was there and she said that he was "still there," with a certain sound in her voice that indicated that they were glad that he soon no longer would be. Ha ha ha.

I was just looking over some of the reviewers' comments. Given what I know about expression levels of muscle acetylcholine receptors in both COS and HEK293 cells, I know they didn't know what they were talking about. If we got normal levels of expression using wild type subunit DNA and failed to show the greater than 50-fold expression level the guy claimed for his mutation (either as published or using his frame-shifted version), the problem in expression wasn't due to our cell-expression system.