Talk:Cell disruption

Comment

There seems to be direct copying of text from (or to?) http://www.piercenet.com/Objects/view.cfm?type=Page&ID=1904ED25-8FA4-475C-8068-C2EB13D5F4E7

Kevin k (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Difference French pressure cell press and Constant Cell Disruption Systems ?

I don't understand the difference between the systems. There must be a more fundamental difference than "fine control", otherwise the information about "Constant Cell Disruption Systems" can be deleted.--Biologos (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Constant Systems method of disruption uses a single fixed orifice which ensures all cells are subjected to the same conditions; the cells do not pass through a valve as with the French Press. Northampton1981 (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Advertorial and copyvio

Okay, this article is very problematic. A lot of it has a rather promotional tone, and another good chunk is based on straight copy-paste copyvio. I'm going to hack at it to see if I can clear out the worst of it.

Version before cutting:

All of section 2 began as a copy-paste job from (archived at .

Sections 3, 4...oh, never mind. Same problem.

The whole article is copy-pasted, except for bits of advertising/advertorial copy added by various product vendors over the years, and a bunch of external links to vendors. I'm stubbing it; maybe someone can write something original and non-commercial in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: update dead-link citation in Bead beating section

Disclosure: I am associated with LabTIE International, the publisher of the page cited in the "Bead beating" section (see my user page), and am therefore requesting this change here rather than editing the article directly.

The citation supporting the sentence about bead dispensers currently points to an archived copy of a URL that went dead in 2017 (labtie.com/112346-bead-dispensers). The equivalent live page is https://www.labtie.com/bead-dispensers. Could an editor update the citation, for example to:

{{cite web |title=Bead Dispensers for DNA Extraction |url=https://www.labtie.com/bead-dispensers |publisher=LabTIE International |access-date=2026-08-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170425030351/https://www.labtie.com/112346-bead-dispensers |archive-date=2017-04-25}}

If reviewers prefer to replace this primary source with an independent one, that is of course also fine. Thank you. DivingGuru (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The {{request edit}} template is for requesting changes to semi-protected pages. For conflict of interest requests, please use {{Edit COI}} instead. In solidarity, Randomdude123459 | Talk | Contribs | 04:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, and apologies for the wrong template. I am deliberately not reactivating this request. What it asked for was an updated link to my own employer's website, which is a primary source that someone with my conflict of interest should not be pushing into an article. The better fix is to replace that sentence and its citation with independent literature, which I have suggested in a separate request below. Please treat this one as withdrawn. I have also removed a stray character that was breaking this section heading. DivingGuru (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Bead beating in plate format, and the uncited "Bead Dispensers" sentence (COI edit request)

Conflict of interest disclosure. I am associated with LabTIE International, a manufacturer of bead dispensers, as stated on my user page at User:DivingGuru, so I am not editing the article myself. I am raising this partly because the current wording reads as promotional in a way that happens to favour my own industry, and because one of the two citations behind it is to my employer's website. This request would remove that citation rather than update it; the earlier request further up the page, which asked for it to be updated, is withdrawn.

Two points in the "Bead method" section.

1. Uncited and brand-like wording. The sentence "Larger bead beater machines that hold deep-well microtiter plates also shorten process times, as do Bead Dispensers designed to quickly load beads into multiple vials or microplates" capitalises "Bead Dispensers" as if it were a product name rather than a generic instrument, and its two citations are both vendor pages, one of them my employer's. I am not asking for bead dispensers to be mentioned at all: I have no independent source that would justify a mention in this article, and since my company sells them, the cleaner course is for that clause to go. If another editor thinks the instrument is worth covering, that is for them to decide on independent sources.

2. The batch size is out of date. The article says bead beating "is done in batch sizes of one to twenty-four sealed, plastic vials or centrifuge tubes". Ninety-six-sample formats are now routine in high-throughput nucleic acid extraction.

Suggested replacement for the "Larger bead beater machines..." sentence:

Bead beating is also carried out in 96-sample format, using deep-well microplates or racks of tubes prefilled with a lysing matrix of mixed bead sizes and materials, so that a whole plate is processed in one run. In high-throughput nucleic acid extraction this format is routine, with samples typically given several short bead-beating cycles and cooled between them.

The preceding sentence about batch sizes could then be qualified, for example by ending it with "although 96-sample formats are also widely used".

Proposed reference:

That paper describes extractions in tubes prefilled with a lysing matrix of 1.4 mm ceramic spheres, 0.1 mm silica spheres and one 4 mm glass bead, three bead-beating cycles of two minutes with two minutes on ice in between, and roughly three hours for a 96-well plate.

If you would rather simply delete the uncited sentence than replace it, that is fine by me and probably the cleaner fix. Rewording or declining is equally fine. DivingGuru (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

References