IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

SENSE/ANTISENSE: what's the concensus?

Stephen R. Lasky Stephen_Lasky at brown.edu
Tue Dec 26 09:34:26 EST 1995

Ken, what is your problem:  You are the one who started the whole thing by
replying to a response that I made that had little to do with the
definitions of sense and anti-sense.

As I pointed out to you when I wrote you back  last week, the definitions
may have changed over the years.  Its ridiculous to continue to argue
about as the terms sense and anti-sense are more slang terms rather than
an biochemically defined terms and therefore can change over time.  If
they have, so be it.  Some books ( including Genes IV that you quote) do
not even use the terms in reference to DNA strands.

As to your point about not argueing with Stryer or Lewin because they are
important authors and scientists, so what?  The whole point of science is
to search for the truth and just becuase someone has a big name (or is
editor of Cell) does not mean that you cannot have a disagreement with

On sense vs anti-sense, give it a break, based on the number of responses,
it doesn't seem that too many people are interested.


Stephen R. Lasky Ph.D.   Brown U/Roger Williams Medical Center,  Providence, RI.   
Phone: 401-456-5672     Fax: 401-456-6569     e:mail: Stephen_Lasky at brown.edu
America may be unique in being a country which has leapt from barbarism to decadence without touching civilization.  John O'Hara.

More information about the Methods mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net