From eleanor@XXXX Thu Feb 12 15:10:19 1998 Envelope-to: eleanor@XXXX Delivery-date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:10:19 +0000 To: eberl@XXXX Subject: Help FlyBase - auditory mutants Cc: eleanor@XXXX From: Eleanor Whitfield (Genetics) <eleanor@XXXX> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 15:18:13 +0000 Content-Length: 1293 Hi, I am curating a paper of yours for FlyBase: FBrf0100015 == Eberl et al., 1997, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 94(26): 14837--14842 in which you describe many auditory mutants. You provide designations for the mutants: 5G23, 5M8, 5M38, 5N15, 5N18, 5N29, 5D10, 5E8, 5F3, 5M7, 5N17, 5N30, 5P1 and 5L3. Apart from 5G10 (which is pir) none of these are in FlyBase. I would like to generate a gene symbol for these mutants so that they form a gene series. Present examples are 'ms' for male sterile, 'l' for lethal. Would you be opposed to the above symbols being prefixed with an 'ad' for auditory defective (or another prefix of your choice)? An example would be: ad5G23 and where we know the chromosome location ad(2)5M8 Do you like this idea or would prefer the genes to be named simply after the line designation? Thanks for your help, Regards, Eleanor Whitfield FlyBase \-------------------------------------------------------------- Eleanor Whitfield. FlyBase (Cambridge), Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, email : eleanor@XXXX Cambridge, CB2 3EH, Phone : 44 (0)1223-333963 UK. FAX : 44 (0)1223-333992 \-------------------------------------------------------------- From eberl@XXXX Fri Feb 13 21:26:27 1998 Envelope-to: eleanor@XXXX Delivery-date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 21:26:27 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset='iso-8859-1' Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:35:40 -0400 To: Eleanor Whitfield (Genetics) <eleanor@XXXX> From: eberl@XXXX Subject: Re: Help FlyBase - auditory mutants Content-Length: 2762 Dear Eleanor, I am in principle in favor of using a systematic naming scheme for these mutants, but I need to confer with the other authors about what would work well. I can right away that ad (for auditory defective) may be misleading, because it implies that these mutants are defective in the sensory part of the auditory behavior pathway. In fact the majority are defective in downstream parts of the pathway (central or motor). So something like acd (auditory courtship defective) might be more appropriate. But I would like to have a chance to think about this a little more and discussing it with colleagues before locking myself in. As I'm sure you will agree, the name can be quite important. Though we haven't published it yet, we have already renamed one of the mutants (5P1) as beethoven (btv). I think this is not a problem because as we learn more about these mutations, it is likely that we would replace the generic name with a more descriptive name anyway. Finally, these mutants are all on the second chromosome. We have not screened any of the other chromosomes yet. How much of a hurry are you in to get this done? I hope to be able to get back to you in a week or so. Until later, Dan From eleanor@XXXX Mon Feb 16 07:50:08 1998 Envelope-to: eleanor@XXXX Delivery-date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 07:50:08 +0000 To: eberl@XXXX Subject: Re: Help FlyBase - auditory mutants Cc: eleanor@XXXX From: Eleanor Whitfield (Genetics) <eleanor@XXXX> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 07:58:09 +0000 Content-Length: 2360 Hi Dan, >I am in principle in favor of using a systematic naming scheme for these >mutants, but I need to confer with the other authors about what would work >well. Marvellous, it seemed to me that I should offer you the chance to think about a naming system as all these mutants are new to the database. >I can right away that ad (for auditory defective) may be misleading, >because it implies that these mutants are defective in the sensory part of >the auditory behavior pathway. In fact the majority are defective in >downstream parts of the pathway (central or motor). So something like acd >(auditory courtship defective) might be more appropriate. I simply threw in ad (for auditory defective) for a suggestion, it is entirely up to the group what you decide upon. We will accept whatever you suggest. >Though we haven't published it yet, we have already renamed one of the >mutants (5P1) as beethoven (btv). I think this is not a problem because as >we learn more about these mutations, it is likely that we would replace the >generic name with a more descriptive name anyway. Indeed, as for pir also. Could I use the information that 5P1 is btv for curation of your paper? All data you submit that is over and above that present in the paper will be curated as a personal communication from yourself to FlyBase, then we have a source for the information you provide if anyone requests it. Is that OK with you? >How much of a hurry are you in to get this done? I hope to be able to get >back to you in a week or so. That is fine with me. If the delay will be longer please let me know. We have a monthly collection of data for loading into the public files. The next collection should be at the beginning of March so I would like this issue completely resolved by then so there is no delay in your data being released. Thanks for your help and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Regards, Eleanor Whitfield FlyBase From eberl@XXXX Mon Feb 16 17:54:19 1998 Envelope-to: eleanor@XXXX Delivery-date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 17:54:19 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset='iso-8859-1' Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 13:05:03 -0400 To: Eleanor Whitfield (Genetics) <eleanor@XXXX> From: eberl@XXXX Subject: Re: Help FlyBase - auditory mutants Content-Length: 432 Dear Eleanor, It seems that all the authors are in agreement with acd as an appropriate symbol, for auditory courtship defective. Regarding beethoven, I think it should be fine to make the entry that 5P1 is renamed btv, and furthermore its map position can now be defined as 36E, on the basis of its inclusion in Df(2L)TW119 and Df(2L)TW201. It complements rdo, which is in the same genetic interval. Thank you very much. Dan
