Antisense and sensibilities
Ferland Louis H.
ferlandl at ERE.UMontreal.CA
Sat Jan 13 01:04:56 EST 1996
On Wed, 10 Jan 1996, Tracy Aquilla wrote:
> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 96 20:49:31 GMT
> From: Tracy Aquilla <aquilla at salus.med.uvm.edu>
> To: methods at net.bio.net
> Subject: Re: Antisense and sensibilities
> In Article <Stephen_Lasky-0901961015170001 at cis-ts1-slip11.cis.brown.edu>,
> Stephen_Lasky at brown.edu (Stephen R. Lasky) wrote:
> >The problem of naming strands probably arose initially from the
> >anthropomorphization of the central dogma: Harking back to the original
> >definitions (in which the DNA sense strand hybridized to the mRNA), if the
> >RNA pol "read" and transcribed that strand it made an mRNA that made sense
> >to the ribosomes when they went to translate it. I believe that this is
> >the opposite of the description above (sense DNA = sense RNA (mRNA) which
> >seems to be in current usage. But I think that our goal should be to get
> >away from using sense and anti-sense to describe strands in the DNA.
> I agree. I found out last year that I use the 'outdated' terminology
> ("harking back to the original definitions") when discussing an aspect of my
> research with a colleague who had been trained more recently than I. What a
> PITA! I said anti-sense, he said sense, even though we were talking about
> the same strand.
> >Why not define the strands based on the action that is taken on them: the
> >transcribed strand (T-Strand) (for the anti-parallel complementary strand
> >to the mRNA), and the non-transcirbed stand (N-Strand) for the strand with
> >the same sequence as the mRNA? The name of the gene that is transcribed
> >can be added if it has not already been defined (as suggested by Dr.
> >Moldwin). mRNA should be mRNA or sense-RNA, and anti-Sense RNA should be
> >the anti-parallel complement to the message. I don't see any ambiguity in
> >this system.
> Agreed, this might be better. However, there will be some ambiguity in cases
> of overlapping genes, which are becoming more common as more DNA is sequenced.
Any ambiguity of this sort can be prevented by naming the reference gene
(which would be required with *any* nomenclature, and as posted before by
myself and others). It seems we may have a go. Bravo, Stephen!
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