Peter Luykx wrote,
> I agree with Malcolm Campbell that it's probably not a good idea to use "+"
>or "-" as parts of gene designations, because of possible confusion with mating
>type loci. In my lab I use P and M for mating types; e.g., pf18 P ac145 M
> ------ Peter Luykx
Can we keep + and - JUST for mating types? e.g. a strain might be
CC-125 C. reinhardtii mt+
CC-530 ac-17 mt-
[hyphen or not, and caps, remaining to be decided, of course]
I see nothing wrong with Peter's P and M terminology for in-house use, but
the mt+ and mt- conventions seem to be standard elsewhere and I'd like to
continue to keep using those, always prefaced by mt in the database.
However, in a published paper I have no objection to using superscript + to
indicate the wild-type allele at a locus, or in a commonly used format for
+ pf-14 X ac-17 +
[The usual convention is to name the mt+ parent first in a cross, so it
isn't specified here; just that the first parent has the wild-type allele
at the ac-17 locus and the second parent has the wild-type allele of
However, in the database, where superscripts aren't going to be feasible, I
would prefer to avoid this system and keep + and - for mating type only.
Susan - do we actually need to resolve this for your TIG entry?
chlamy at acpub.duke.edu