Subject: FlyBase query
Dear Dr. Ephrussi,
I am curating your paper for FlyBase:
Vanzo and Ephrussi, 2002, Development 129(15): 3705--3714
and I have a question about one of the constructs you used \- 'osk WT'
in Figures 4 and 5.
Is this wild-type osk construct the 6.45kb genomic rescue construct
described in:
Ephrussi and Lehmann, 1992, Nature 358(6385): 387--392
If it is not the 6.45kb rescue construct, please can you tell me a
reference where 'osk WT' has been used, so that I can work out which
construct in FlyBase it corresponds to,
thanks,
Gillian
\--------------------------------------------------------------
Gillian Millburn.
FlyBase (Cambridge),
\--------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: FlyBase query
Dear Dr Millburn.
Anne Ephrussi contacted me concerning your request on the construct we used
\- 'osk WT' in Figures 4 and 5 of my paper. NO, this construct is not
strictly identical to the wild-type osk 6.45kb genomic rescue construct
described in:
Ephrussi and Lehmann, 1992, Nature 358(6385): 387--392
The osk WT genomic construct I used is described in the Figure 3 of the
same publication (Ephrussi and Lehmann, 1992, Nature 358(6385): 387--392)
except that the bcd3'UTR was replaced by the osk3'UTR. This substitution
was done as following: downstream of the stop codon TAA, I added a 1037bp
WT genomic osk fragment beginning with the next osk codon and containing
the full-length osk3'UTR.
So basically the two constructs are different at the level of the osk
promoter fragment which is slightly longer in the wild-type osk 6.45kb
genomic rescue construct.
Regards
Nathalie
============================================
Dr. Nathalie Vanzo
Ephrussi Group, Developmental Biology Programme
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Meyerhofstrasse, 1
69 117 Heidelberg
Germany