jeh at REPLICON.LANL.GOV
Tue Oct 29 18:00:29 EST 1991
The case you note is a case of duplicate entries, and one which
requires cleaning up. There are currently a fair number of these
duplicates in the database. We are attempting to clean these up
before the next release cut-off (end of November).
These duplicates have arisen as a drawback of becoming completely
caught up with EMBL entries, a benefit which we felt outweighed this
"evil". That is, we translated into GenBank every EMBL entry based
on primary accession number. In the case you note, EMBL had the entry
under a different primary accession number, and this has led to the
At the last collaborative meeting it was decided to revise the accession
number rules, to allow a primary accession number to be a secondary
accession number in another entry. Such a change allows for the dual
views of "historical" vs. "biological" in that an accession number as
a primary acc# points to the original, atomic, reported sequence, while
that same number as a secondary acc# would denote that the sequence was
used in a merged. Thus one could store both views and have the ability
to present either one.
This change would make the case you note legal, though it is clearly
against the spirit of the change, *is* duplicate, and will be corrected.
GenBank, Los Alamos
----- Begin Included Message -----
More information about the Bioforum