Talk:TaqMan

Untitled
has anyone got a (simplified and publisceble) ΔRn graph?

I've completely revised this page--a lot of the content in its previous version should shame any molecular biologist worth his or her salt (e.g. that amplification if the PCR is linear--it is not, it's the whole point of PCR that the amplification is exponential). No references were given, so I've included two most pertinent to the Taqman technology, and I've completely revised the text to purge it of its many typos and other errors.Malljaja 11:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. much shorter. this page was a WEE bit messy... sorry the article was written really quickly (between long trizol fuges...) and I actually never reread it properly. I ment linear in an log scale but the section on when "exponetial" curve plateaus was too long, so it is a good thing that went out. The taqman microRNA assays are the next big thing. I would think it should be there... most litterature is from ABI as it is so new, though. every nobel is a microRNA guy nowadays... some newbie grad student might get inspiartion from the article and make a great carrer? that would be soemthing. Squidonius

Alright that explains it--when pressed for time, I compose the text in word, and once it's hammered out the way I want it I paste it into the edit. I'm not familiar with the Taqman microRNA assay--are there already Wiki pages on that? May be worthwhile checking. Otherwise go for it--I'll also keep an eye out. Malljaja 20:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference 3 isn't working

Dual Labeled Probes or Taqman?
It seems to me that this page should be titled "Dual Labeled Probes" instead of TaqMan. TaqMan is thre trademarked version of the more generic term Dual Labeled Probes (DLP). ABi/Life Technologies has started being pretty aggressive with defending this trademarked term, so other companies have stopped calling their DLPs "TaqMan".

Also, their patents on the technology are being challenged in court right now as a response to their lawsuit against Operon, Biosearch, etc. Apparently there's evidence of prior art in a 1990 paper (which I unfortunately can't find online), and the patents were applied for in 1996.

I may start making some changes after I do more research. I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who has more familiarity with the situation. Ryan Brady (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that this should be changed. I was never quite comfortable with the title of this entry, because it puts too much emphasis on the trademark and less on the actual principle of this molecular technology. So my vote also goes to re-naming the entry to "Dual-labeled probes" (with a redirect from "Taqman"), because even the patent issue doesn't have much bearing on this. Malljaja (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)