From: "Garth I. Patterson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 7:50:39 AM US/Pacific
To: Paul Sternberg <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
<email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mark Viney
<Mark.Viney@bristol.ac.uk>, Mark Blaxter <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: nomenclature, non-elegans
It seems you have proposed a way to be sure that briggsae names will
match C. elegans names unless the genes are orthologs. So cb-dpy-1 is
ortholog of elegans dpy-1, but dpy-cb2 is not an ortholog of elegans
But that allows us to end up with the following--cb might have a gene
dpy-cb2, or cb-dpy-cb2 as a synonym, and a second gene called
names are unique, but perhaps confusing. Maybe genes defined only by a
mutant phenotype in briggsae should get a unique number, so that
and elegans genes only have the same number if they are orthologs.
hands out "dpy" numbers would do so for all species. I am putting this
there for comment--it removes one problem and replaces it with
balance I like the idea, but can see the other side.
Also, it might make sense to make a rule now about renaming genes. If
is a gene that is called dpy-cb40 that turns out to be an ortholog of
dpy-20, should it be renamed cb-dpy-20 as a matter of course?
Whoever hands out three letter gene names should do so for briggsae,