>From cadigan@XXXX Wed Mar 13  05:13:04  2002
To: Rachel Drysdale <rd120@XXXX>
Subject: Re: gammy legs
Dear Rachel,
Our paper describing the gammy legs gene is now officially in press.
However, it is now called pygopus. It turns out that three labs (mine,
Mariann Bienz's and Konrad Basler's) all discovered the gene independently
and all have papers coming out in the next few months. We agreed to let a
neutral party select a name-- so pygopus it is. The field is well served
by this, though we still miss the old name.
How do we go about changing the lead name. Is this email enough?
Please let me know.
Ken
From rd120@XXXX Wed Mar 13  12:04:08  2002
To: cadigan@XXXX
Subject: Re: gammy legs
Hi Ken,
Thankyou for that, and now FlyBase-Cambrige knows what a pygopus is (so
well informed).
I'm happy to rename based on what you say below. I'll also mail
Mariann and Konrad to check whether or not their versions have sneaked
out through an abstract somewhere (in which case I'll need to merge
gene records), then I'll make a joint pc from you all. Congratulations
on working out a nomeclature solution. Very pro-active.
best regards,
Rachel.
From rd120@XXXX Wed Mar 13  13:17:43  2002
To: baslerXXXX, mb2XXXX, cadigan@XXXX
Subject: Re: gammy legs
Dear Mariann and Konrad (and Ken, see the bit about the symbol which I
forgot to mention in my last),
I have this mail below from Ken and will change gammy legs to pygopus.
I'm writing to ask whether Mariann and/or Konrad have published
abstracts or sequence accession records about this gene under another
name/symbol. If so, then there is a chance (abstracts) or certainty
(sequence accession records) that we already have a record in FlyBase.
I will take this opportunity to merge the records, though it will take
weeks for the merge to show up on the public server (just missed the
cut-off for a round of updates).
I'm not sure what you plan for the short symbol. It can't be pyg as we
already have a pyg: pygoscelis (FBgn0020790), and it seems to me that
to choose pygo might be asking for trouble with respect to potential
for confusion with pygoscelis. How about pygp?
Thankyou for your help,
Best wishes,
Rachel.
From basler@XXXX Wed Mar 13  14:17:19  2002
To: Rachel Drysdale (Genetics) <rd120@XXXX>
Subject: Re: gammy legs
Dear Rachel,
thanks for your help in this matter. I have only one comment to add:
the abbreviation must be pygo. For several reasons: 1) it's always
better if it can be pronounced, 2) we can no longer change it in our
manuscript which is in press, 3) Mariann also used pygo as the
abbreviation in her paper, and finally, I don't worry about possible
confusion with pygoscelis, these proteins act in different systems
and are unlikely to ever be used in the same context.
Hope you will agree..
Best wishes,
Konrad
From rd120@XXXX Wed Mar 13  14:21:05  2002
To: baslerXXXX, mb2XXXX, cadigan@XXXX
Subject: Re: gammy legs
Hi Konrad,
all your reasons are sound but reason number 2 particularly
compelling!
I'm happy for it to be pygo if you all are.
Rachel.
From mb2@XXXX Wed Mar 13  14:39:21  2002
To: Rachel Drysdale <rd120@XXXX>
Subject: Re: gammy legs
I completely agree with Konrad, Rachel \- it must be pygo!
It was quite an effort finding this name (and Roel Nusse gets the credit
for finding it, and getting us to agree), and I think we've done well to
end up with one rather than three names.
Cheers, Mariann