Well, the comments of the reviewers of the Journal of Bacteriology. The first reviewer has no major quarrel, we mark certain comments that can be easily re-write and ask us to shorten a little discussion. The second author asks us to shorten the materials and methods but also mapping doubt one of the promoters we report! I do not have the technique that we use (5'RACE) that all reviewers want to see the results! is a script file: colored letters and curves! I guess they are used to resolve sequence gel but we use an automatic sequencer, period! that is the advantage of the technique. From there you need more evidence of our prediction. I can understand that point, so I do not quite fit in the head is the initial motivation! Otherwise our data calls "well Presented and Advanced Knowledge on this novel plasmid Regulatory system. Even suggests the (obvious) need to experiment to validate our mapping.
Now I can only describe my mood as anxious. Rereading my book I realize that maybe an error in an image of the article helped trigger the suspicion, that's easy to fix but I feel ashamed to have committed the error. As the experiment asked a thousand times easier (and obvious !!!!) that I was asked in the first magazine, but I dread the idea of \u200b\u200bbeing stuck in the initial construction. This fusion plasmid filthy rebels and then I took six months to clone a promoter! THE angry boss amiss with the comment of second reviewer perceives "bottle" and I do not imagine is going to get when I tell my errorcito. I hope that gives me a chance to divert pa coach to help me and buy me a pair of enzymes pa facilitate the work.
Yes, this is a cryptic post and little to do with skepticism, but it helps take the stress!
