Comments on: Quick E1 update http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2007/08/03/quick-e1-update/ Meddling with things mankind is not meant to understand. Also, pictures of my kids Sat, 25 Jun 2011 18:45:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: iayork http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2007/08/03/quick-e1-update/comment-page-1/#comment-36 iayork Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:37:00 +0000 http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2007/08/03/quick-e1-update/#comment-36 <blockquote>Was this ARTS-1, eh, ERAP1? Does it really play a role in TNFR shedding?</blockquote> Yeah, ERAP1. I haven't tested the TNF-R shedding aspect myself. For various reasons (that I won't go into here) I'm moderately skeptical.

Was this ARTS-1, eh, ERAP1? Does it really play a role in TNFR shedding?

Yeah, ERAP1. I haven’t tested the TNF-R shedding aspect myself. For various reasons (that I won’t go into here) I’m moderately skeptical.

]]> By: Suicyte http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2007/08/03/quick-e1-update/comment-page-1/#comment-35 Suicyte Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:28:44 +0000 http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2007/08/03/quick-e1-update/#comment-35 <blockquote> I’m inclined to be pretty forgiving about nomenclature. We ourselves renamed a gene that already had not one, not two, not three, but (at least) four names in the literature already. While I still think our name is the best (and, I modestly note, it seems to be by far the most popular in the literature as well) there are some, rare, occasions, late at night, when I feel a twinge of guilt for it.</blockquote> Was this ARTS-1, eh, ERAP1? Does it really play a role in TNFR shedding? It seems this activity depends on the name given to the protein.

I’m inclined to be pretty forgiving about nomenclature. We ourselves renamed a gene that already had not one, not two, not three, but (at least) four names in the literature already. While I still think our name is the best (and, I modestly note, it seems to be by far the most popular in the literature as well) there are some, rare, occasions, late at night, when I feel a twinge of guilt for it.

Was this ARTS-1, eh, ERAP1? Does it really play a role in TNFR shedding? It seems this activity depends on the name given to the protein.

]]> By: iayork http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2007/08/03/quick-e1-update/comment-page-1/#comment-34 iayork Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:53:57 +0000 http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2007/08/03/quick-e1-update/#comment-34 <blockquote>With regard to gene nomenclature: it is well possible that Wade mentioned this gene before Sept-06 (I found the name UBE1L2 in a file of that date on my hard disk). But before that, the gene was called MOP-4 for ‘monocyte expressed protein 4′, and this name dates back to 1998 (cf the uniprot entry Q86T78).</blockquote> I'm inclined to be pretty forgiving about nomenclature. We ourselves renamed a gene that already had not one, not two, not three, but (at least) four names in the literature already. While I still think our name is the best (and, I modestly note, it seems to be by far the most popular in the literature as well) there are some, rare, occasions, late at night, when I feel a twinge of guilt for it.

With regard to gene nomenclature: it is well possible that Wade mentioned this gene before Sept-06 (I found the name UBE1L2 in a file of that date on my hard disk). But before that, the gene was called MOP-4 for ‘monocyte expressed protein 4′, and this name dates back to 1998 (cf the uniprot entry Q86T78).

I’m inclined to be pretty forgiving about nomenclature. We ourselves renamed a gene that already had not one, not two, not three, but (at least) four names in the literature already. While I still think our name is the best (and, I modestly note, it seems to be by far the most popular in the literature as well) there are some, rare, occasions, late at night, when I feel a twinge of guilt for it.

]]> By: Suicyte http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2007/08/03/quick-e1-update/comment-page-1/#comment-33 Suicyte Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:59:06 +0000 http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2007/08/03/quick-e1-update/#comment-33 Ian, thanks for the clarification. I had no idea that JBC can be THAT fast. 14 days from submission to final acceptance - pretty impressive. Maybe it is connected to the fact that ASBMB selected this work as 'paper of the week', see http://www.asbmb.org/ASBMB/site.nsf/web/6674755166C6746E8525732C005E8281 I should add that I have no connection whatsoever with the Groettrup group. I see Marcus occasionally at ubiquitin meetings, but that's it. And I certainly agree with your previous analysis that the Nature paper offers far more than the JBC paper, explaining the difference in impact. With regard to gene nomenclature: it is well possible that Wade mentioned this gene before Sept-06 (I found the name UBE1L2 in a file of that date on my hard disk). But before that, the gene was called MOP-4 for 'monocyte expressed protein 4', and this name dates back to 1998 (cf the uniprot entry Q86T78). Not that any of this is important... -Kay Ian, thanks for the clarification. I had no idea that JBC can be THAT fast. 14 days from submission to final acceptance – pretty impressive. Maybe it is connected to the fact that ASBMB selected this work as ‘paper of the week’, see http://www.asbmb.org/ASBMB/site.nsf/web/6674755166C6746E8525732C005E8281
I should add that I have no connection whatsoever with the Groettrup group. I see Marcus occasionally at ubiquitin meetings, but that’s it. And I certainly agree with your previous analysis that the Nature paper offers far more than the JBC paper, explaining the difference in impact.
With regard to gene nomenclature: it is well possible that Wade mentioned this gene before Sept-06 (I found the name UBE1L2 in a file of that date on my hard disk). But before that, the gene was called MOP-4 for ‘monocyte expressed protein 4′, and this name dates back to 1998 (cf the uniprot entry Q86T78). Not that any of this is important…
-Kay

]]>