> applied GRABAdo1.0, a GPCR-based sensor for adenosine At first the intro was: > Using genetically encoded adenosine sensors And I did not know what was mea

> applied GRABAdo1.0, a GPCR-based sensor for adenosine At first the intro was: > Using genetically encoded adenosine sensors And I did not know what was meant with that. Lateron this became more clear - GPCR is a common motif for membrane-based receptor systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_protein-coupled_receptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_protein-coupled_receptor So, saying it is "genetically encoded" xyz, means absolutely NOTHING at all, because all the other receptors based on GPCR (see the wikipedia article) are ALSO "genetically encoded". After all some stretch of DNA yields mRNA which in turn is translated into the corresponding aminoacid sequence (= protein), if we ignore splicing and so forth to simplify this (and then transport into the membrane). This is supposed to be a scientific article though - why do they use such a strange terminology e. g. "genetically encoded"? I mean, this follows by simple logic unless it was made completely artificially. Lateron in the article it is more clear, but it is strange that they use those words in the summary-intro part. It almost seems to me as if they wanted to integrate certain keywords as buzzwords or to rank an article higher. I don't quite like that. Contrast this to Watson and Crick from 1953: "It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material." It is probably one of the most famous intro lines, e. g. the "It has not escaped our notice" since it was so casual. (And they built their insights on data of others, so it wasn't just Watson and Crick to have made the discovery; not even only Franklin etc.. but several more that should have been credited with it. Watson and Crick's main achivement here was more that they built it together into a simple, cohesive overview and explanation model. If I recall correctly, Linus Pauling also came close but proposed three helices.)