Subject: Re: Nomenclature for eIF4G
> >Dear Rachel,
> >
> >We would like to get your help and advice on a nomenclature change 
> >request. Could you please advise us on who is the right person to 
> >discuss this with at Flybase? We have laid out the issue below.
> >
> >We would like to propose a nomenclature change for CG10811, 
> >currently listed as eIF-4G in Flybase, to use the format eIF4G. 
> >This change will bring the gene name into a format consistent with 
> >broad usage in the greater field of the translational initiation 
> >literature.  It seems to me that the most important thing is to make 
> >the form of the name of the Drosophila gene and protein consistent 
> >with usage in the field of translation initiation, which is a very 
> >large and established field.  In this field, which has a long 
> >biochemical history the form used is eIF4G, without the hyphen.  If 
> >we use a different form of the name, we risk making the fly 
> >literature more difficult to understand by the general field of 
> >translation initiation.
> >
> >Even the Drosophila literature appears to use eIF4G more frequently 
> >than eIF-4G.  In searching the references cited in Flybase, although 
> >the gene is called eIF-4G in the first referenced publication 
> >(Zapata et al, 1994), which used the hyphenated form, almost all of 
> >the subsequent publications listed by Flybase use the form eIF4G, 
> >consistent with the terminology in the translation initiation field. 
> >This includes Hernandez et al (1998) and (2005), Zappavigna et al 
> >(2004), and the Lasko (2000) paper that summarized the translation 
> >initiation and RNA binding proteins homologs found in the genome 
> >sequencing effort.  The only recent exception was Borklund et al. 
> >(2006), which used eIF-4G.  However, this was a genomics paper that 
> >probably just echoed the Flybase listing. A literature search 
> >indicated the same trend for Drosophila eIF-4A and eIF-4E: there are 
> >noticeably more publications which use the un-hyphenated forms. 
> >We propose that changing the nomenclature to make it more consistent 
> >with the translation literature will make the Drosophila translation 
> >field more accessible from all angles (genomic and literature-based) 
> >to the larger field of work on translation initiation in many 
> >organisms. 
> >
> >We would like to request that Flybase consider changing in the 
> >official listing to eIF4G (for CG10811).
> >
> >Thank you so much for your help.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Margaret Fuller and Catherine Baker