|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 May 2020 and 22 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Chloeolivia30.
If anyone's upset that I redirected Complementation, tell me and I'll switch it back myself, save you the bother. I didn't realise that it didn't need disambiguating (if that makes any sense) and in the course of sorting out the compliment (genetics) and complimentarity (molecular biology) type pages. Moment of madness, sorry. Its not bad like this, though. --Mike C | talk 13:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to author an article on the use of knock-outs and plasmids/cosmids (or other sources of movable genes) as a means of establishing gene function. I think this is a substantially different topic to merit its own page (Complementation (biotechnology)? Complementation (genomics)? Complementation (plasmid)?), although I could write a section here instead, since it is still nominally genetics, just with radically different ways of getting an organism with the two genes of interest. What do you think?
If I do it as a separate article, we'd probably want to switch complementation over to a disambig instead of a redirect, of course.
Csari 15:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, as a total newbie I don't know how you can add a link to the French version of this wiki entry. It does exist ("Complémentation" on fr.wikipedia.org) but there isn't any link either to nor from the French version. It might help people, so if somebody can add this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahoebeke (talk • contribs) 11:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Ahoebeke, and thanks for the note. You can read about interlanguage links at Help:Interlanguage links. This time someone beat us to it and already added a link to the French article. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The logic in the picture?
I understand the concept (it is also well explained in the article), but I can't understand the picture. White A--> White bb-x-> Not Red White aa-x-> Not White B--> Not Red
Isn't "not white" just "red" here? And "not red" is "white"? What the X represent here on the eyes and on the arrows? Not? Cross? Why not just communicate that for red eyes, you need at least one A and one B, otherwise the eyes are white? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)