Talk:Plasmodium berghei

GFP

Hello @Ajpolino: I forgot that I had already added a brief mention of GFP. Would you object to merging the two and not deleting? The most recent text and citations I added are more specifically about GFP, and the study is the original GFP P. berghei paper. I think naming the exact publication/authors would be appropriate briefly. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Invasive Spices:, pardon the slow reply. I don't mean to be difficult, but I don't see what there really is to merge. The text Franke et al., 2004 introduces a fluorescently labeled reference line which has greatly aided research. It expresses green fluorescent protein (GFP). This is especially useful in visualising intrahost disease progress. is completely covered by the current text A number of genetically modified P. berghei lines have been generated which express fluorescent reporter proteins such as Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) and mCherry (red) or bioluminescent reporters such as Luciferase. These transgenic parasites are important tools to study and visualize the parasites in the living host. which has apparently been in the article since 2006. The only exception is the naming of the author, which I don't think is appropriate here. It's often difficult to decide which details merit inclusion in an article, and which do not. We try to generally follow WP:PROPORTION, and ask "How much do reliable articles on [Article title] typically include this kind of detail". Here, I think the answer is clear, they do not. Even the cited 2005 review (when the 2004 paper you mention by name is still fresh and exciting!) says only The use of wild-type parasites that express GFP [63, 70] should also facilitate the analysis of red blood cell stages in vivo. referencing the paper you mention and [1]. And that's in a review focused on in-vivo imaging of Plasmodium parasites! We can expect there are details in that review that we wouldn't wish to include in our more general article on P. berghei. Put another way, if we were working on an article called Imaging Plasmodium berghei a greater level of detail would be appropriate, and maybe even a call-out to the authors would be helpful, particularly in the History section.

Anyway, pardon the long reply. I hope that helps explain my thinking. Happy to discuss further. Sadly there aren't many parasitology-interested editors hanging around, so if you truly disagree and we'd like a third opinion, we may have to sneak off to WP:MICRO or even WP:MED to get one. I hope all is well with you! Best, Ajpolino (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I thought that looked like my work but no (in deed that was Janse) and the 1999 method next to it obviously predates it. Certainly I agree we should follow whether secondaries mention Franke-Fayard by name…which this does not.

The only thing left is to suggest that we use the citations to cite the preexisting paragraph. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to modernizing the citations! Ajpolino (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]