nema genetic nomenclature-2
We should also consider that we want to make
our results understandable people in other research
areas
(flies, vertebrates...etc.) thus keeping it as
simple as possible would be good (e/f).
In particular, for briggsae and other closely
related nematodes, it would be good to make every effort
to
apply point 1 (Orthologs will be given the
same name but with a species prefix), rather than 2.
****Philosophy and
constraints:
a. From an informaticianıs perspective, each
genetic entity should have a unique name, and there should be an
authority to maintain uniqueness.
b. From a researcherıs perspective, the
names should be easy-to-use and intuitive, and not generate confusing
nicknames (think about what you would write on the side of your Petri
plate). Subcommunities (e.g., those working on Pristionchus or
briggsae) would tend to drop
c. If possible, the names should not stifle
creativity.
d. From a classical geneticistıs point of
view, there should be names that can be used for decades before the
molecular identity of a locus is known.
e. From a molecular geneticistıs point of
view, orthology should be obvious from the name. f. However the
name should not confuse relationships among genes.
g. Other species names should not crowd out
those in C. elegans.
Uniqueness (a) is the overriding concern.
Ease of use is the second priority. Dependingo n the researcher,
(b,d) or maximizing (e) and minimizing (f) is more
important.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Bürglin, lecturer (Associate Prof.)
Dept. of Biosciences at
Novum
and Center for Genomics and Bioinformatics
Karolinska
Institutet
Mailing address:
Thomas Bürglin
Dept. of Natural Sciences
Alfred Nobels alle
7
Södertörns
Högskola
SE-141 89
Huddinge Email:
thomas.burglin@biosci.ki.se
Sweden Web:
www.biosci.ki.se/groups/tbu/
NOTE: NEW phone numbers
Off Tel: +46-8-608
4564
Lab Tel: +46-8-608
4746
Fax Tel: +46-8-608
4510
------------------------------------------------------------------------