Subject: Re: nema genetic nomenclature
From: Marie-Anne Felix
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:30:12 +0100
To: Bhagwati P Gupta , Jonathan Hodgkin , Paul Sternberg ,, Eric Haag ,,, Marie-Anne Felix , Victor Ambros , CGC advisory ,,,,,,,,

Hello all,

I agree with Paul's 1,3,4.

Concerning the point 2.: What about using a nomenclature such as unc-b1,
unc-b2 etc. for the C. briggsae mutants which have not been characterized
at the molecular level (and then, if so call them for ex. Cb-unc-22 once
they have been as proposed in point 1?). The Pristionchus ones could be
unc-p1, the Oscheius ones unc-o1 or unc-t1 or whatever-if-ever-I
get-a-species-name-for-this-damned-species. This seems to me less
cumbersome that the unc[Cb]-1 that Paul originally proposed, but it is the
same idea. Protein would be UNC-b1 (or UNC-B1)?
(Alternatives: unc-B1 or uncB1)

For Paul's point  3.: The other problem is that for Pristionchus and
Oscheius, Jonathan told us so far that he did not want to check on our
three-letter designations, so, with Ralf, we have come up with ped- vul-
dov- cov- and whatever. I hope they are not yet on the C. elegans list.
Should we now apply for them?

All the best,

Marie-Anne Felix
Institut Jacques Monod, Tour 43, 2 pl. Jussieu,
75251 Paris Cedex 05, France
Tel: +33-1-44-27-40-88; Fax: +33-1-44-27-52-65
(5e etage, couloir 42-43)