antisense technology?

Paul N Hengen pnh at
Fri Nov 22 16:10:10 EST 1996

Elizabeth Rosenberg (erosenbe at wrote:

> OK.  I said we were new to this game.  I apparently don't have the jargon
> down quite yet.

The funny thing is I knew exactly what you were trying to say, but this is
a huge trap you might want to avoid in the future. The antisense problem has
been discussed in great depth here before. I saw someone else ask a question
on sense and antisense, but I think we are all so burned out on it that it's
not worth discussing again. If you want to see what others have suggested,
I'll print the reference here.

author = "P. N. Hengen",
title = "Methods and reagents - Is there any sense
in antisense terminology?",
journal = "Trends in Biochemical Sciences",
volume = "21",
number = "4",
pages = "153-154",
month = "apr",
year = "1996"}

> Therefore, we "plan" to use various restriction
> fragments of our cDNA in the pREP10 construct.  Hope this is more clear.
> Is this an acceptable strategy?  

Maybe you should start from the perspective of introns versus exons rather than
arbitrarily selecting a restriction fragment from the cDNA clone which might
span across a junction. It's just a thought, since I have not done this kind of
thing before. Does the technique work for RNA already spliced? Maybe someone
with experience in it can suggest a better way to decide on which sequence
would be best for binding mRNA in vivo. That's the goal here right?

* Paul N. Hengen, Ph.D.                           /--------------------------/*
* National Cancer Institute                       |Internet: pnh at |*
* Laboratory of Mathematical Biology              |   Phone: (301) 846-5581  |*
* Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center|     FAX: (301) 846-5598  |*
* Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201 USA              /--------------------------/*
* - - -  Methods FAQ list -> - - -  *
* -  TIBS column archive -> - -  *
* - The BEST Molecular Biology HomePage ->  *

More information about the Methods mailing list