3 ms·

Don't forget that the genomics folks also renamed a whole bunch of genes a few years ago so now there are two different names for the same thing floating around

• dekhn 10y ago
  For every gene, there are typically at least 3-4 names that reference the gene. In some cases, two genes have the same name- for example, OCT1 and Oct-1. The first is "organic cation transporter 1" and the second is "Octamer binding protein 1". The second was "renamed" to (IIRC) POU2F1 but there are still plenty of references to the old name even in new literature. This is just one example. The entire gene naming area is a pile of bollocks.
  • apathy 10y ago
    And we haven't even touched on the glory of Drosophila gene names.
• apathy 10y ago
  Oh this happens constantly. Apparently, in an ideal world, every gene will have multiple counterintuitive symbols that appear to give insight as to what the protein does, but are in fact misleading. HGNC seems to delight in nonsensical renaming. MLL (Mixed-lineage leukemia, a gene rearranged in many leukemias, particularly infants) is now KMT2A ("Lysine Methyl-Transferase 2A"), yet gobs of its fusion partners are canonically named, say, MLLT3 ("Myeloid/Lymphoid Or Mixed-Lineage Leukemia; Translocated To, 3"). But wait, what's its translocation partner? Oh, right, the Gene Formerly Known As MLL. Who thinks this is a good idea? Journals typically insist on the latest HGNC (HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee, a subset of the HUman Genome Organization) symbols, whatever they might be (see above). Not atypically, in review, someone will ask to use the old name because that's what they're used to. Best of all is when reviewers each suggest using a different name. Science!