Dear Dr. Kelly,
I am doing some work on your 'stoned is a dicistronic transcript' paper
\*x FBrf0089585 == Andrews et al., 1996, Genetics 143(4): 1699--1711.
We originally curated the data as though it all belonged under the
'stoned' gene, stn. But the biology of the situation dictates that
we split the data into two new 'genes', stnA and stnB. To do
this I must partition the alleles of the defunct 'stn' gene into the
new stnA and stnB and this is no easy task. Here are the alleles we
currently have for stn (with the \*a representing the valid symbol and
the \*i lines synonyms), with an arrow denoting which of the two the
allele should become, where I have been able to figure it out.
\*A stn1
\*i l(1)8P1
\*i 8P1
\*i stn8P1
\*A stn10
\*i l(1)VA228
\*A stn11
\*i l(1)VE720
\*i stnVE720
\*A stn12 --> stnA
\*i l(1)13-120
\*i stn13-120
\*A stn14 --> stnB
\*i l(1)PH1
\*i stnPh1
\*i stnPH1
\*A stn15 --> stnA
\*i stnC
\*i stnC
\*A stn2
\*i l(1)M143
\*A stn3 --> stnA and stnB double mutant phenotype, - polarity
\*i l(1)R-9-10 or double mutant?
\*i R-9-10
\*A stn4
\*i l(1)R-9-15
\*i R-9-15
\*A stn5
\*i l(1)X3
\*i stnX3
\*i X3
\*i X-3
\*A stn6 --> stnB
\*i stnts1
\*A stn7 --> stnB
\*i stnts2
\*A stn8
\*i l(1)C88
\*A stn9
\*i l(1)HC121
\*A stnR-1-10
\*A stnS64
\*A stnVE814
I have also looked at
\*x FBrf0020833 == Lifschytz and Falk, 1969, Mutat. Res. 8: 147--155
and
\*x FBrf0058577 == Petrovich et al., 1993, Genetics 133(4): 955--965
I notice that there is no chromosomal orientation for your Figure 1B.
If there were I might (optimistically, perhaps) assign stn5 and stn4,
since Lifschytz clearly distinguishes them (X3 and R-9-15 in his Figure 2).
Perhaps you know the chromosomal orientation by now?
Another problem is that, since these two proteins are encoded from the
same transcript, the complementation data will never be simple (polarity
effects etc), as I discovered from the Petrovich paper. The only firm
'yes/no' conclusion that I could draw from this paper was that the stn ts
alleles fall into a different group from stn15 (stnC), which is backed
up by your molecular findings.
Do you have any molecular information that would allow me to assign stnA/stnB
status to the remaining alleles stn1, stn10, stn11, stn2, stn4,
stn5, stn8, stn9, stnR-1-10, stnS64 and stnVE814. Your paper
suggests that there is nothing to be found (molecularly) for stn6 (ts1),
stn7 (ts2), stn15 (C), stnS64 or stn1 (8P1).
For any that must remain unassigned I will simply place them in stnA with a
note saying that the allele may actually represent a lesion in stnB, and move
them as/when the data becomes available.
Any light you can shed on the sitation, including your opinion of my
assignments to stnA and stnB above, would be most welcome,
with best wishes,
Rachel.
\----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Drysdale.
FlyBase (Cambridge),
\----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Subject: Re: helping FlyBase
Reply to: RE>helping FlyBase
Dear Rachel,
I am sorry I have been tardy in replying to your e-mail,
but I have been overseas, and I have also been loathed to place data in 'fly
base' without further experimental data confirming the location of the various
stoned alleles. We now have MOLECULAR data SUGGESTING that both stnC and the
stnts1 and stnts2 alleles MAY be within the stnA 'gene'. In fact the only
stoned allele that we can now unambiguously place in the stnB gene is the
stnPH1 allele, which is an insertion of an I factor in the second ORF. We
really would like to obtain harder molecular data on the stnC and stnts
alleles, as these alleles are central to an understanding of the
complementation data in the Genetics paper (Andrews et al., 1996).
At least temporarily, I would place all the behavioral and lethal alleles of
stoned into stnA with the exception of stnPH1 which is certainly in stnB, but
which may be having effects on the expression from the stnA cistron.
I'm sorry I can't be of more help, but our data at the moment just doesn't
allow for a complete clarification of the situation. If you can think of any
other ways in which I might be able to help, please let me know.
Again I'm sorry that I didn't get back to you sooner.
Regards,
Len Kelly