On mutations

8 Responses to On mutations

1. Maxine Clarke says:

   27 May 2010 at 18:51

   Is that in the PDF or the HTML? (ie typo or conversion error)?
2. Richard P. Grant says:

   28 May 2010 at 08:24

   It’s only available as a PDF.
3. Grant Jacobs says:

   28 May 2010 at 11:24

   I had a commenter who pointed that out in my blog. I replied to the effect that it was the advance copy and hoped that it’d be picked up and fixed before the print release. No idea if it made it into print, I only see Nature on-line these days.
   I’d guess it’s a typo: ‘p’ is adjacent to ‘o’ on a QWERTY keyboard. Bit unlucky though, as you’d expect a computer spell-checker to report it.
   I’m sure my own papers have more embarrassing errors 🙂
4. Maxine Clarke says:

   28 May 2010 at 17:54

   If it is in a PDF then it is a typo, I imagine. If it were in the HTML then one could compare it against the PDF version and tell if it is typo or conversion error.
   Not sure why there is no HTML version – maybe this is the “Science Express” fast publication system.
   By the way, Grant, this is not a Nature publication but a Science one.
5. Grant Jacobs says:

   29 May 2010 at 00:02

   Maxine,
   You’re right, I must have been thinking of the commentary piece in Nature. (I read both for the blog and must have gotten the two mixed up when I replied to you.)
6. vishal kalel says:

   29 May 2010 at 09:08

   Love the Science. Slay the Errors..!
7. Richard P. Grant says:

   29 May 2010 at 11:00

   Yes, it is the Science Express thingy. Heaven forfend there’d be tyops in Nature!
8. vishal kalel says:

   29 May 2010 at 12:10

   Faster the polymerase, more frequent the mutations.. Yes, proofreading matters everywhere.!
   Nature rules the Science.. (No pun intended!)

Comments are closed.