Talk:Phagemid

Clearer
I don't understand. I thought a phagemid was the recombinant DNA inside the phage? Username132 19:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong. But someone should edit my article on pBluescript, because it's full of my misunderstanding. Username132 19:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I think I was right > supports my idea But then this, stub could be more clear. Username132 16:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the word "vector (biology)" is the problem - it could refer to the DNA or the virus itself. It's ambiguous. Username132 16:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC). Vector is clear in this context - it is accepted as a term for an artificial plasmid.

A phagemid is a plasmid that are artificially manipulated so it contain a small segment of a f1 phage genome.

A phagemid is simply a plasmid that contains a region of phage DNA (ori) that enables the plasmid DNA to be replicate in single strand form and be packaged into phage particles. This replication and packaging process requires the action of phage enzymes and proteins. These are provided by superinfection of the phagemid host by a 'helper' phage. The helper phage itself is usually designed to be packaged less efficiently than the phagemid DNA so that the resultant phage particles contain phagemid DNA and not helper phage DNA. The current article is incorrect in stating that only a small portion of the phagemid is packaged In fact the entire phagemid is converted to single stranded DNA and packaged into phage particles. Phil Scrutinator (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * i changed it ✅

Is there a difference to cosmids?
Is there a difference to cosmids?--92.194.245.168 (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the cos site and the f1 ori are the main difference ✅
 * Still there is the question why only F1 is "allowed" to be called a "Phagemid" proper, but other phages not. Is there not a more scientific definition of what exactly constitutes a "phagemid"? A vector that combines a plasmid and (parts of) phages perhaps? At any rate, the article needs to cite more sources in my opinion. 213.240.100.201 (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)