Subject:  mol = l(2)35Bb? (again)
Hi, John,
CG31834 has come up on a list of annotations
that are suspect, because they are not conserved
within the Drosophila species for which sequence
data are available.  In addition, there are a
lot of new ESTs on the other strand which support
extending the mol annotation so that it would
overlap the region of CG31834 (additional 5' UTR
exons only, no change in protein).  There are 2
fully sequenced cDNAs among these: RE74613 and
LD27791.
I think it may be time to reassess which of these
is in fact l(2)35Bb.  I am inclined to think that
mol is l(2)35Bb and that CG31834 should be demoted
to "existence uncertain."
\--Lynn
Subject:  Re: mol = l(2)35Bb? (again)
Ah ha!  This is good news.  I predicted something like this because our
EMS alleles of l(2)35Bb do not complement insertions in mol, nor do
they complement insertions in CG31834.  So I'm more than happy to
believe that these are one and the same gene....or at least mol extends
to 'CG31834' region.
For example the Exelixis insertion e02670 in mol is lethal with the
Steven Oh insertion SH1330 in CG31834 and both are lethal with EMS
alleles of 35Bb.
Thank you!
...
Best wishes,
John
On 1 Mar 2006, at  23:38 , Madeline Crosby wrote:
> Hi, John,
>
> CG31834 has come up on a list of annotations
> that are suspect, because they are not conserved
> within the Drosophila species for which sequence
> data are available.  In addition, there are a
> lot of new ESTs on the other strand which support
> extending the mol annotation so that it would
> overlap the region of CG31834 (additional 5' UTR
> exons only, no change in protein).  There are 2
> fully sequenced cDNAs among these: RE74613 and
> LD27791.
>
> I think it may be time to reassess which of these
> is in fact l(2)35Bb.  I am inclined to think that
> mol is l(2)35Bb and that CG31834 should be demoted
> to "existence uncertain."
>
> \--Lynn
>