Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glowing tobacco plant
Interesting photo of a tobacco plant genetically engineered to glow. Adds significantly to Genetic engineering and Bioluminescence, and pulls in readers wondering what's going on in the picture.
- Nominate and support. - brian0918™
03:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC) - Interesting picture, resolution may be an issue. Phoenix2 16:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I like it. --ZeWrestler 17:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's good. I'll support it provided licence information can be confirmed. Lupin 13:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- This is the classic photo by David Ow of a transgenic plant expressing firefly luciferase. This photo is in quite a few text books. For example, Biology of Plants by Raven, Evert and Eichhorn, 6th Edition (Freeman/Worth) page 699. Are there copyright issues?? David D. 23:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- i just read the file history and this photo is supposedly in the public domain. What is strange is that all the authors were at the University of CA when the work was done. The USDA did fund some of the work with along with NSF. Is it the funding source that makes it public domain? David D. 23:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- I put PD because I was under the impression that the Ow group at UofCA was part of the "Plant Gene Expression Center" which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "Agricultural Research Service" [1]. But now I don't know maybe he wasn't part of that group back then? Maybe I should email Dr. Ow.--Deglr6328 02:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- He was a post doc in San Diego when the paper was written. Now he does work at the PGEC in Albany. In your favor, I have seen the picture in at least a couple of text books. May that imply it is public domain? My guess would be to contact Science magazine since they were the original publishers. Usually the publisher holds the photo rights and you have to get their permission to release the picture. David D. 12:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't particularly trust whoever I may happen to contact at Science magazine to not simply claim copyright on it when they themselves may be unsure. Waiting on reply from Dr. Ow. What does your book say in the attributions section?--Deglr6328 19:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- The Biology of Plants book credits Keith Wood, University of California, San Diego. David D. 20:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Geez he was a tough one to track down. He now apparently works at Promega making luminescent cellular assays [2].
Looks like there is no contact information out there though.Found it: kwood@promega.com --Deglr6328 22:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)- Ha beat me by two minutes :-) Good luck with getting permission. David D. 22:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- i found this info for Keith Wood. It looks current. David D. 22:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Geez he was a tough one to track down. He now apparently works at Promega making luminescent cellular assays [2].
- The Biology of Plants book credits Keith Wood, University of California, San Diego. David D. 20:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't particularly trust whoever I may happen to contact at Science magazine to not simply claim copyright on it when they themselves may be unsure. Waiting on reply from Dr. Ow. What does your book say in the attributions section?--Deglr6328 19:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- He was a post doc in San Diego when the paper was written. Now he does work at the PGEC in Albany. In your favor, I have seen the picture in at least a couple of text books. May that imply it is public domain? My guess would be to contact Science magazine since they were the original publishers. Usually the publisher holds the photo rights and you have to get their permission to release the picture. David D. 12:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- For the reply from Dr. Ow see the image talk page--Deglr6328 07:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- I put PD because I was under the impression that the Ow group at UofCA was part of the "Plant Gene Expression Center" which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "Agricultural Research Service" [1]. But now I don't know maybe he wasn't part of that group back then? Maybe I should email Dr. Ow.--Deglr6328 02:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- i just read the file history and this photo is supposedly in the public domain. What is strange is that all the authors were at the University of CA when the work was done. The USDA did fund some of the work with along with NSF. Is it the funding source that makes it public domain? David D. 23:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support Enochlau 11:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support --ZeWrestler 11:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support Titllating pic. Circeus 12:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Support assuming PD status is valid. But I can't see any explanation of why the plant was made to glow. People tend to misinterpret this as 'Franken-food', whereas I vaguely recall the real reason was that the luciferase gene was just being used as a marker to clearly demonstrate that a transgenes were present in all cells in the plant. -- Solipsist 12:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Solipsist you are correct above. Did you see the description of the picture? It seems quite clear. An image of a tobacco plant which has been genetically engineered to express a gene taken from fireflys (specifically: Photinus pyralis) which produces luciferase. The image is an "autoluminograph" produced by placing the plant directly on a piece of Kodak Ektachrome 200 film. When the plant is watered with a luciferin containing nutrient medium, tissue specific luminescence is observed.
- Yes, but it doesn't really say why you would want to do that. Who needs glow in the dark tobacco plants? And as I say, I think the answer is 'no one', except that a visible marker in each cell was a useful way of checking that the genetic manipulation had worked in this early experiment. -- Solipsist 00:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- The genetic manipulation was known to have worked because there was a second gene that gave the plant resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin. So, the luciferase was not required for that purpose. When the experiment was first performed the goal was to develop a visible marker for gene expression. One use is to take the regulatory regions of a gene of interest to drive the luciferase gene. This allows scientists to address from a spatial and temporal perspective when that gene of interest is expressed. The best example of this was to track the expression of circadian genes (express on and off in a 24hr period). You can literally watch the plant glow go on and off with the changes in gene expression. So, in summary, it was not done just for fun but developed as a tool for scientific research, this is highlighted by the fact that Keith Wood is still working at promega to develop tools utilising luciferase. May be, if it is helpful, some of this background can be incorportated into the photo's description? David D. 00:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but it doesn't really say why you would want to do that. Who needs glow in the dark tobacco plants? And as I say, I think the answer is 'no one', except that a visible marker in each cell was a useful way of checking that the genetic manipulation had worked in this early experiment. -- Solipsist 00:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Solipsist you are correct above. Did you see the description of the picture? It seems quite clear. An image of a tobacco plant which has been genetically engineered to express a gene taken from fireflys (specifically: Photinus pyralis) which produces luciferase. The image is an "autoluminograph" produced by placing the plant directly on a piece of Kodak Ektachrome 200 film. When the plant is watered with a luciferin containing nutrient medium, tissue specific luminescence is observed.
- Support. Very educational and fascinating. Image page provides a lot of information. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Support great example of genetics, and very "eye grabbing" Uber nemo
- Support. Pretty cool. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 20:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Not promoted +10 / -0 , but following good work to clarify the licence, it looks like this image may not be PD, but rather copyrighted with permission to use on Wikipedia - a {{Copyrighted}} tag makes it ineligible for WP:FP. -- Solipsist 07:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)