SENSE vs. ANTI-SENSE DNA CALL FOR VOTES

the End lruble at bronze.ucs.indiana.edu
Tue Feb 6 00:08:43 EST 1996


 Jim Graham (lruble at bronze.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>> : Darn, sounds like I'm a little late. I've been working on
>> transcription : for the last 7 years, and in the monastic inner circle
>> of prokaryotic : (yes, that's a K :) transcription, we designate the two
>> strands, : "template and non-template" in relation to the RNA
>> polymerase.  : This mechanistic perspective from biochemistry I believe
>> cuts to the : chaste. I guess it is similar to the proposed designation,
>> but I : find it evokes a more readily visualized image.

Paul:
> That is exactly what is proposed, so why do you sound like you're against
> this? It is not that THIS is confusing but that the use of sense and
> anti-sense wrt DNA that is confusing. The proposal is to eliminate the
> *sense* stuff from the DNA terminology! Do you have any problem with
> that?

Hello Paul,

Oh, I thought the proposal was more specific (ie. "transcribed
strand") rather than a suggestion of dropping any "sense" designation.
Preferably "template strand" is all I would add. :)

Thanks for asking,

Jim
J. Graham 
Biology Department 
Washington University of St. Louis 



More information about the Methods mailing list