Syntax

diff --git a/tags/template_switching.mdwn b/tags/template_switching.mdwn
index 5712f8eef422aca9d70303608c264ffde36be141..7af520cbe2fe366cd330ba773c974b0d909f44a6 100644 (file)
--- a/tags/template_switching.mdwn
+++ b/tags/template_switching.mdwn
@@ -22,15 +22,15 @@ Originally, the TSOs were all-RNA.  Since this is expensive to synthesise,
 TSOs where only the last 3 bases are RNA became popular.   LNA was also tested
 as a replacement for RNA.
 
- - [Picelli et al (2013)|biblio/24056875] reported a higher performance for
+ - [[Picelli et al (2013)|biblio/24056875]] reported a higher performance for
    RRL compared to RRR, when preparing Smart-seq2 libraries.
 
- - [Harbers et al (2013)|biblio/24079827] used the nanoCAGE protocol to compare
+ - [[Harbers et al (2013)|biblio/24079827]] used the nanoCAGE protocol to compare
    TSOs ending in RRR, DDD, DDL, DLL or LLL, and reported that only the RRR
    TSOs had good efficiency (less PCR cycles needed to amplify the cDNAs) and had
    the lowest amount of strand invastion artefacts.
 
- - [Arguel et al (2017)|biblio/27940562] reported similar performance for
+ - [[Arguel et al (2017)|biblio/27940562]] reported similar performance for
    RRR and RRL, using a 5′-focused method similar to nanoCAGE or STRT.
 
 [[!inline pages="tagged(template_switching)" limit=0]]