disruption VS deletion

Rafael N Szeinfeld szeinfel at FOX.CCE.USP.BR
Fri Nov 5 08:45:58 EST 1993

On 4 Nov 1993, Morris F. Manolson wrote:

> >	You are of course right when you say that an isertion or a 
> >deletion is not enought to ensure a lack of activity as it was a null 
> >mutation but disrruption is a powerful method and it will depend a bit on 
> >how lucky the scientist is. After disrruption you must analyse if 
> >you lost activity. 
> >	Right Marci&Morris ?
> >Rafael
> ahhh, I am not sure about that.  In a lot of cases the "activity"
> of the gene product is not known and people are performing the
> disruption (or deletion) to found out just that....what IS the
> biological function of the gene.  In these cases, when you do not 
> know what exactly to measure after the disruption, I think the
> reasonable thing to do is to delete as much of your gene as possible (while
> making sure that you are not also deleting another gene
> upstream or downstream of your gene; for this you would need to have
> completely sequenced your gene) and then to confirm deletion of
> the genomic copy of the gene by southern anaylsis.  Right Rafael and Marci?
> ******************************************************************************
> Morris F. Manolson                     Tel:  416-813-6662  (office)
> Division of Cell Biology                     416-813-5594  (lab)
> Hospital for Sick Children                   416-813-5028  (FAX)
> 88 Elm St., McMaster building        email:  Morrie at resunix.ri.sickkids.on.ca
> Toronto, Ontario, Canada
> M5G 1X8
	Right Morris, I made some assumptions that you perfectly stated above.
	Hey Marci you have nothing to say?

More information about the Yeast mailing list