Sense/Antisense debate

Ferland Louis H. ferlandl at ERE.UMontreal.CA
Sat Jan 6 01:18:30 EST 1996


On Fri, 5 Jan 1996, Richard Moldwin wrote:

> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 14:34:44 GMT
> From: Richard Moldwin <rmoldwin at midway.uchicago.edu>
> To: methods at net.bio.net
> Subject: Re: Sense/Antisense debate
> 
> This sense/antisense stuff is making my head spin.  When 
> we first started designing antisense oligos, we had the 
> same problems of conflicting usages in the literature.  
> Can't we abandon the sense/coding terminology completely?  
> How about:
> 
> For DNA:
> 	Beta Actin Transcribed Strand
> 	Beta Actin Non-transcribed Strand
> 
> (The gene name is important in case the opposite strand is 
> also transcribed)
> 
> For mRNA:
> 	Beta Actin mRNA
> 	cDNA to Beta Actin mRNA
> 		-or-
> 	Beta Actin cDNA oligo
> 
> (The latter would be the same as the confusing beta actin 
> antisense)
> 
> I assume that there is a consensus that cDNA means a copy 
> of DNA complementary to the mRNA.
> 
> --Rich
> 
All this stands fine with me, except we have to account for RNA that are 
other than mRNA, but that's easy: rRNA, tRNA, etc. The "cRNA" term 
required, for example, in some quantitative RT-PCR procedures (RNA 
complementary to a usually mutated cDNA) will continue to be a mind bender, 
but I think it still can fly.


Dr. Louis H. Ferland
Centre de Recherche, Hotel-Dieu de Montreal
Dept de Nutrition, Universite de Montreal
Phone: (514) 843-2757     FAX: (514) 843-2719




More information about the Methods mailing list