Subject: Re: nema genetic nomenclature-2
From: Marie-Anne Felix
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 20:03:21 +0100
To: Paul Sternberg
CC: , Bhagwati Gupta , Eric Haag , , , , Marie-Anne Felix , Victor Ambros , CGC advisory , , , , , , , , (Richard Durbin), Lincoln Stein ,, spieth John ,


(question:  is Cb-tra-1 or Cbtra-1 preferable?)

We have been using Cb-tra-1 so far. A little longer, but it may help people
to distinguish species from gene names (especially outside the community).

The organismís community should decide on the exact implementation; this
choice will be tracked by the CGC or WormBase.

Yes, we can start with single letters and go on with doubles later if
needed (as for the allele lab codes). NB: Two species can easily have the
same two letters (Pelodera punctata and Pristionchus pacificus), so putting
two letters right away may not help.

3.  Gene classes with no equivalent in C. elegans or other species will be
given unique three-letter-number names.  There could be a standard name
class for ìclassically-defined genesî such as cdg- or gen- or ?

Again, as I said in my first mail, we already have been using some
three-letter-number- names-not-controlled-by-Jonathan. What should we do
with them?

If someone has a particularly nice example of real alleles, that would be

(For example in the Curr. Biol. 2002 Delattre and Félix paper, we used
unc-2(mf29) in Oscheius sp. 1. We shoudl now call it unc-x2.)