Subject: Re: Helping FlyBase: spen allele
Hi Rachel,
I went back and looked at Gellon . . indeed we didn't list poc361
as one of the poc (now spen) alleles that we isolated. We said that
we isolated six alleles of poc/spen, but didn't say that their lab
numbers were 66, 231, 247, 259, 361, and 430. We sent the 231 and
361 alleles of poc/spen to Staehling-Hampton, and they used them in
their paper.
So you are right, the spen361 we mention in the results should
properly be called spen<up>poc 361</up>.
Best,
Bill
>Dear Bill,
>
>I am curating your Development paper for FlyBase
>
>*x FBrf0112078 == Wiellette et al., 1999, Development 126(23): 5373--5385
>
>you mention an allele, spenpoc361, that you say was reported in
>
>*x FBrf0098246 == Gellon et al., 1997, Development 124(17): 3321--3331
>
>but I don't see it there. There is a spen361-6, published in
>
>*x FBrf0111491 == Staehling-Hampton et al., 1999, Genetics 153(1): 275--287.
>
>Is this the same allele as your spenpoc361? I think, when you use
>the symbol spen361 in the text (e.g. first paragraph of Results) that
>you mean the spenpoc361 mentioned in Materials and Methods - but if
>you could confirm that for me I would be grateful.
>
>With best wishes,
>
>Rachel.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Rachel Drysdale, Ph.D.
>
>FlyBase (Cambridge),
>----------------------------------------------------------------------