tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post7129567747912494523..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: The delicious smell of eggs!Anne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-57424137692218677422016-02-01T11:33:30.187-05:002016-02-01T11:33:30.187-05:00Here's a new paper that finds ORs expressed on...Here's a new paper that finds ORs expressed on tumor cells: http://www.nature.com/articles/cddiscovery201570, and the authors test for a specific OR that responds to a known odorant. The paper says the odorant affects cell division, and may suggest some therapeutic uses. We cannot comment on that, but it is interesting, again, that the authors refer to this expression as 'ectopic'Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-58074175985288761372016-01-28T09:35:10.422-05:002016-01-28T09:35:10.422-05:00Yes, this is not just stodginess on our part. The...Yes, this is not just stodginess on our part. The name problem can be subtle. For example, 'fibroblast growth factors' are not just used in signaling fibroblast development, but the name could mislead experimental design or interpretation (eventually, of course, we learn to ignore the names). BRCA1 is not a gene 'for' breast cancer, but is widely expressed. Focusing attention on breast cancer can distract from the important question why the same alleles in that gene aren't associated with all sorts of major morbidity; one can imagine various reasons, but it's important to think about such questions, and names can be misleading. Similar things apply to the gene associated (very clearly) with Huntington disease, etc. We're symboling species, and even scientists can be led off course, even if we eventually make a correction.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-71026035244748769352016-01-28T09:23:31.318-05:002016-01-28T09:23:31.318-05:00Very true that naming is a cultural thing. Of cou...Very true that naming is a cultural thing. Of course, the naming of genes for a single trait or locus of expression represents a time in the history of genetics when it wasn't yet widely understood that genes could be pleiotropic, and that most genes aren't 'for' a single trait. Unfortunately, it can constrain the understanding of gene function, even now when these things _are_ understood. Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-18994329404539103062016-01-28T09:05:01.740-05:002016-01-28T09:05:01.740-05:00I may be more sympathetic to the whimsical naming ...I may be more sympathetic to the whimsical naming trend simply because all proper names (as opposed to initialisms, for example) are whimsical to some extent. Whether my name is "John" or "Sonic" is pretty much up to the levels of whimsy of my parents.<br /><br />Naming is a cultural thing, and I accept that there is a culture of science and science naming that can influence the people doing science. <br /><br />But initialisms and acronyms that refer to the Big Breakthrough your grant money expects results from is, I will agree, a part of that culture that shows a little too much of what is behind the curtain while the Great Oz manipulates the controls. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05749975102896505201noreply@blogger.com