![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Lipofection page were merged into Transfection. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the Gene delivery page were merged into Transfection. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the RNA transfection page were merged into Transfection. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
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)
You guys are all right, in a way. Transfection and Transformation in the sense of introducing DNA into host cells is the same thing. It was first done with bacteria and they called it transformation. When this was then acchieved in eukaryotes as well, they had to call it something different, because the term Transformation was already used with the meaning "cancerous". However, now that this is clear, the term transformation has also been used to described stably transfected mammalian cells. And the justification for that is fairly simple: The reason for a cancerous cell to be cancerous, is it's altered genetic background (a mutation). Well, if we call cells with an altered genetic content transformed, then it makes sense to also use this term to describe mammalian cells that we altered willingly. This should clearify things. However, the reason why I initally came to the discussion page is that I don't think it was first done in 1977 but in 1973 by van der Eb but I can't find the reference for that right now. Does anybody know? Matthias, guest (my first Wikipedia entry ever!) 130.102.0.178 13:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd be against this merge - While transfection is always induced, transformation happens spontaneously in some prokaryotes. Also, I believe some of the techniques used differ? I think it would bepotentially confusing to merge these articles together - a link at the top is sufficient. strych 11:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
My lab manual defines transfection as being strictly for eukaryotes while transformation refers to prokaryotes. The source was a technical appendix from the Promega corporation. Both of these pages could use some cleaning up but I think the definitions should remain separate. Mark Gobbin 13:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Transformation also applies to eukaryotes. For example, the same plasmid can be used both to transfect insect cells and to transform insects. The procedures and goals are fairly different, though. You can generalize that "transformation" leads to a heritable change in an intact organism, and "transfection" is the act of introducing DNA (or RNA) into cells, in vivo or in culture, leading to (initially at least) a transient change. These definitions are operational and do not really account for the long term fate of the DNA. Ultimately the topics are different enough to merit their own pages. In fact, these might be good places to compile and comment on specific protocols for each. Gmdelyk 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The initial comment was right. See for example Annu Rev Microbiol. 1966;20:371-400. I've edited the article to clarify this. I'm going to also do some work on the transformation/competence/competent cells pages, merging the 'competent cells ' page into the 'competence (biology) one, which I have just expanded and clarified (I think I may be the Wikipedia expert on this stuff). The transfection and transformation pages should not be merged. Let's keep the 'transfection' page for eukaryote stuff, the 'competence (biology) one for bacterial competence (= all about DNA uptake, and the transformation (genetic) one as an article about transformation (the genetic consequences of DNA uptake), with pointers to 'transfection' and 'competence (biology)'. Rosieredfield 00:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Flint, Endquist, Racaniello, and Salka, Principles of Virology Second Ed. pg. 49 "The term transfection (transformation-infection) was coined to describe the production of infectious virus after transformation of cells by viral DNA... Unfortunately, the term transfection is now routinely used to describe the introduction of any DNA or RNA into cells." It seems to me from this that the term transfection has its own seperate meaning and history and shouldn't probably be combined.
Tranfection and transformation are two separate things. So, the articles should be separate but they can be just linked. Nirajrm Δ | [sign plz] 15:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Microbiologists exclusively use the term transformation -- I think merging the two entries would lead to confusion, and I join the others in agreeing that they should remain separate with a link at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.39.169 ( talk) 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
They are most certainly two separate things. Transformations often have the connotation of the uptake of naked DNA while transfections usually have some some sort of transporting molecule (usually a micelle). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lelio Rising (
talk •
contribs)
21:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Definitely against this merge, the term transfection is not used in plants at all. Transformation is. David D. (Talk) 04:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Given that this article states the original meaning of the term "transfection" was transformation by virus, I'm suggesting a merge of these two articles. - tameeria ( talk) 06:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Against - transfection now means "the introduction of foreign material into eukaryotic cells." This can be done with or without a virus, and viruses can be used to transform prokaryotic cells as well, so I think Viral transformation should talk about viral transformation in all cells, but in a more specific manor, whilst transfection should be a more general article. There's sure to be overlap, but I'm sure there's a lot to be said about viral transformation. -- PhiJ ( talk) 17:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Mammalian cell transfection using calcium phosphate was discovered more than a decade earlier than the article claims. Please check the original work by Szybalski & Szybalski (1962). 89.74.181.136 ( talk) 15:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) --
Kkmurray (
talk)
15:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)I have a problem with the mechanism of DNA delivery into the cells via cationic lipids. Is it really true that in this case DNA/nucleic acid is actually encaged into liposomes and enters cell when the liposomes fuse with the plasma membrane? Invitrogen website claims that even in this case the complexes enters via endocytosis...I would say endocytosis as well as fusion to plasma membrane.
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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.65.113 ( talk)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Lipofection page were merged into Transfection. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the Gene delivery page were merged into Transfection. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the RNA transfection page were merged into Transfection. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
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)
You guys are all right, in a way. Transfection and Transformation in the sense of introducing DNA into host cells is the same thing. It was first done with bacteria and they called it transformation. When this was then acchieved in eukaryotes as well, they had to call it something different, because the term Transformation was already used with the meaning "cancerous". However, now that this is clear, the term transformation has also been used to described stably transfected mammalian cells. And the justification for that is fairly simple: The reason for a cancerous cell to be cancerous, is it's altered genetic background (a mutation). Well, if we call cells with an altered genetic content transformed, then it makes sense to also use this term to describe mammalian cells that we altered willingly. This should clearify things. However, the reason why I initally came to the discussion page is that I don't think it was first done in 1977 but in 1973 by van der Eb but I can't find the reference for that right now. Does anybody know? Matthias, guest (my first Wikipedia entry ever!) 130.102.0.178 13:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd be against this merge - While transfection is always induced, transformation happens spontaneously in some prokaryotes. Also, I believe some of the techniques used differ? I think it would bepotentially confusing to merge these articles together - a link at the top is sufficient. strych 11:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
My lab manual defines transfection as being strictly for eukaryotes while transformation refers to prokaryotes. The source was a technical appendix from the Promega corporation. Both of these pages could use some cleaning up but I think the definitions should remain separate. Mark Gobbin 13:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Transformation also applies to eukaryotes. For example, the same plasmid can be used both to transfect insect cells and to transform insects. The procedures and goals are fairly different, though. You can generalize that "transformation" leads to a heritable change in an intact organism, and "transfection" is the act of introducing DNA (or RNA) into cells, in vivo or in culture, leading to (initially at least) a transient change. These definitions are operational and do not really account for the long term fate of the DNA. Ultimately the topics are different enough to merit their own pages. In fact, these might be good places to compile and comment on specific protocols for each. Gmdelyk 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The initial comment was right. See for example Annu Rev Microbiol. 1966;20:371-400. I've edited the article to clarify this. I'm going to also do some work on the transformation/competence/competent cells pages, merging the 'competent cells ' page into the 'competence (biology) one, which I have just expanded and clarified (I think I may be the Wikipedia expert on this stuff). The transfection and transformation pages should not be merged. Let's keep the 'transfection' page for eukaryote stuff, the 'competence (biology) one for bacterial competence (= all about DNA uptake, and the transformation (genetic) one as an article about transformation (the genetic consequences of DNA uptake), with pointers to 'transfection' and 'competence (biology)'. Rosieredfield 00:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Flint, Endquist, Racaniello, and Salka, Principles of Virology Second Ed. pg. 49 "The term transfection (transformation-infection) was coined to describe the production of infectious virus after transformation of cells by viral DNA... Unfortunately, the term transfection is now routinely used to describe the introduction of any DNA or RNA into cells." It seems to me from this that the term transfection has its own seperate meaning and history and shouldn't probably be combined.
Tranfection and transformation are two separate things. So, the articles should be separate but they can be just linked. Nirajrm Δ | [sign plz] 15:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Microbiologists exclusively use the term transformation -- I think merging the two entries would lead to confusion, and I join the others in agreeing that they should remain separate with a link at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.39.169 ( talk) 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
They are most certainly two separate things. Transformations often have the connotation of the uptake of naked DNA while transfections usually have some some sort of transporting molecule (usually a micelle). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lelio Rising (
talk •
contribs)
21:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Definitely against this merge, the term transfection is not used in plants at all. Transformation is. David D. (Talk) 04:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Given that this article states the original meaning of the term "transfection" was transformation by virus, I'm suggesting a merge of these two articles. - tameeria ( talk) 06:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Against - transfection now means "the introduction of foreign material into eukaryotic cells." This can be done with or without a virus, and viruses can be used to transform prokaryotic cells as well, so I think Viral transformation should talk about viral transformation in all cells, but in a more specific manor, whilst transfection should be a more general article. There's sure to be overlap, but I'm sure there's a lot to be said about viral transformation. -- PhiJ ( talk) 17:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Mammalian cell transfection using calcium phosphate was discovered more than a decade earlier than the article claims. Please check the original work by Szybalski & Szybalski (1962). 89.74.181.136 ( talk) 15:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) --
Kkmurray (
talk)
15:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)I have a problem with the mechanism of DNA delivery into the cells via cationic lipids. Is it really true that in this case DNA/nucleic acid is actually encaged into liposomes and enters cell when the liposomes fuse with the plasma membrane? Invitrogen website claims that even in this case the complexes enters via endocytosis...I would say endocytosis as well as fusion to plasma membrane.
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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.65.113 ( talk)
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)
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)
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)
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)