Subject:  FB Help Mailer: 742 Personal communication
comments:    I think there was a mix-up in the estimated cytology for the two insertions in line PL00464 in this data submission to FlyBase:
    ftp://flybase.org/flybase/associated_files/Haecker.2004-1.xml
    Here is the relevant bit of the XML from that file:
    <Line line_id="PL00464" is_multiple_insertion_line="Y">
       <Insertion insertion_symbol="PBac{GAL4D,EYFP}CG9666PL00464" transposon_symbol="PBac{GAL4D,EYFP}">
       <InsertionData is_homozygous_viable="Y" is_homozygous_fertile="Y" derived_cytology="75A4">
       <WithinGene><LocalGene fbgn="FBgn0036856" fb_gene_symbol="CG9666"/>
            </WithinGene></InsertionData></Insertion>
       <Insertion insertion_symbol="PBac{GAL4D,EYFP}PL00464" transposon_symbol="PBac{GAL4D,EYFP}">
    <InsertionData is_homozygous_viable="Y" is_homozygous_fertile="Y" derived_cytology="76A3">
             </InsertionData></Insertion></Line>
    In Release 3, as in Release 5, the estimated cytology for CG9666 was 76A3 (not 75A4). Apparently a single flanking sequence, CZ559692, was submitted to GenBank for the line PL00464. That sequence maps to CG9666 in Release 5 and is therefore consistent with an insertion in 76A3 (R5 estimated cytology).
    The information accompanying this stock when donated to the Bloomington Stock Center indicated that it carried one insertion in 75A4 (not in a gene) and a second insertion in 76A3, within CG9666.
    Thus, I think the reported cytology associated with PBac{GAL4D,EYFP}CG9666PL00464 (FBti0058316) should have been 76A3 rather than 75A4, and the reported cytology associated with PBac{GAL4D,EYFP}PL00464 (FBti0058317) should have been 75A4 rather than 76A3.
    -- Kathy
 realname: Kathy Matthews