CALL FOR DISCUSSION: CHROMOSOMES/bionet.genome.chromosomes

Bill Melchior wmelchior at ntet.nctr.fda.gov
Mon Apr 12 13:22:08 EST 1993


Francis writes:

> I think there is an attempt here to put two groups together, which don't 
> really belong together.  On one side you should have 
> bionet.genome.human.chromosome and on the other you should have 
> bionet.molbio.methods.autoseqs. 

I agree.  After a hiatus in my sequencing, I'm about to start again, this
time with an ABI, so I expect to have some questions.  HOWEVER, my work has
nothing to do with any kind of chromosome.  (I'm studying chemical
mutagenesis in plasmid DNA.)  I don't look forward to scanning a chromosome
list for methods questions about sequencing, and I wouldn't think
chromosome people would particularly want to see my techniques questions. 
(Wouldn't the chromosomers be more interested in things like stratagies 
for assembling long sequences, rather than the operational details that 
are implied, at least to me, by the name "autoseqs"?  If my concept of what 
autoseqs should be misses the point, I'd appreciate being enlightened.)

I endorse the idea of having an autoseqs methods group.  If it fails to
have sufficient traffic, I would think relevant questions would be more
appropriately discussed in METHODS than in a chromosome group. 
________________________________________________________________________________
Views expressed are not necessarily those of NCTR, its sponsoring agencies,
or the United States government.

Bill Melchior                                ||    
National Center for Toxicological Research   ||    ALL statements
Jefferson, AR  72079                         ||    in this
(501) 543-7206                               ||    signature box
                                             ||    are false.
WMELCHIOR at NTET.NCTR.FDA.GOV                  ||    



More information about the Bioforum mailing list