SENSE vs. ANTI-SENSE DNA CALL FOR VOTES
howe at DARWIN.UCSC.EDU
Tue Feb 6 19:41:35 EST 1996
I have to agree 100% with Dr. Graham. My avoidance of returning to this
debate was for lack of a strong feeling for the proposed terms (ie.,
transcribed strand, etc.), which are fine, but I feel that "template"
and "non-template" strand designations are more clear, unambiguous and
applicable to transcription of either strand (in cases of overlapping
transcription and antisense expression). I'm also not too thrilled
about "T" and "N" strand designations- perhaps this is trying to change
too much at once.
Just my opinion (of course).
On 6 Feb 1996, the End wrote:
> Date: 6 Feb 96 16:16:26 GMT
> From: the End <lruble at bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
> To: methods at net.bio.net
> Subject: Re: SENSE vs. ANTI-SENSE DNA CALL FOR VOTES
> > Jim, we discussed the use of template strand. It was felt that this also
> > could lead to ambiguity since both strands in DNA serve as template
> > stands during replication.
> Yah. However, the entire designation (template/non-template or
> sense/anti-sense) is only relevant to transcription in a specified
> orientation anyway. The fact that the word template is also used
> in describing other processes is hopefully something not too confusing
> for most researchers. :)
> The phrase "transcribed strand" may be literally good, but in common
> use it is less specific than "template strand" when discussing gene expression
> as both strands are bound and traversed by the RNA polymerase in the
> process of "transcription", while only one is used as a "template".
> "Transcribed strand" seems unlikely to raise the "which" question
> as often as "anti-sense strand", but also more likely than "template
> strand" when used in a relevant context (ie. transcription).
> (No, I don't enjoy being a disagreeable %^&%$ after the fact. :)
> J. Graham PhD
> Biology Department
> Washington University of St. Louis
More information about the Methods