Reverse Northern

Gene Huh gshuh at garnet.berkeley.edu
Sat Sep 21 22:27:55 EST 1996


In article <Pine.3.89.9609210236.A5648-0100000 at mistral.ERE.UMontreal.CA>,
ferlandl at ERE.UMontreal.CA ("Ferland Louis H.") wrote:

> This is a message for Paul Hengen: we lose! (see below)

Huh???

> With apologies to those who haven't followed (or didn't care about) the 
> previous debate on the sense/antisense terminology.
> On 21 Sep 1996, Gene Huh wrote:
> >      I actually dislike the term "Reverse Northern" the way I have seen it
> > used, primarily because it is jargon-derived jargon.  I mean, in many
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^(ouch!)
> > cases, cDNA is used to probe DNA on dotblots.  Seems like a Southern to me
> > :).  I wish there were a better term (e.g., Eberwein's lab also uses the
> > term "expression profiling", which seems more accurate in that context).  

I should add that this was written with all due respect to those who
derived the term "RN".  You have to admit, however, that "Reverse
Northern" is a little harder to intuitively deduce. Maybe harder than
"inverse PCR", even. :)

>snip
>
> > Apologizing for my semantic nitpicking and 
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Gene! Huh? (Sorry for this...)

     I know, you couldn't resist.  No, really, I understand.  You realize,
of course, you've given me license to respond.  Someday.  :):):)  


> 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

     Ummm, with all due respect to your response, I'm afraid I'm missing
something.  Was there some debate regarding "what is antisense" some time
ago? If so, I apologize and correct myself by redefining aRNA as
complementary to the original mRNA.  Or was the above a comment on the
Eberwein technology itself? :)
 
Antisensically yours, 
Gene Huh
gshuh at garnet.berkeley.edu



More information about the Methods mailing list