antisense delivery by liposomes
Ferland Louis H.
ferlandl at ERE.UMontreal.CA
Wed Feb 7 17:46:45 EST 1996
On Wed, 7 Feb 1996, Pamela Norton wrote:
> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 13:07:19 -0500
> From: Pamela Norton <pnorton at hendrix.JCI.TJU.EDU>
> To: methods at net.bio.net
> Subject: Re: antisense delivery by liposomes
> In article <DMBC02.7vK at ncifcrf.gov>, pnh at kaylor.ncifcrf.gov (Paul N
> Hengen) wrote:
> > Iddo (idoerg at shum.cc.huji.ac.il) wrote:
> > : Hello all,
> > : I'm in the preliminary stages of setting up an assay which requires the
> > : delivery of phosphorothioated antisense-DNA (PS-DNA) to a primary cell-
> > ................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > AAAAaaaaaaarrrgggggggghhhhhhhh!!!!
> > -Paul.
> Paul and everyone,
> There is _NO_ way that the term "antisense DNA" will be eliminated, for
> exactly the reason illustrated above. The use of antisense
> oligodeoxynucleotides is extremely widespread, and the terminology makes
> sense (pun accidental) in this context. This usage is also a major source
> of the confusion that started the sense/antisense thread. I suggest that
> the terms sense and antisense be restricted to single stranded nucleic
> acids, with the mRNA serving as the definition of sense.
> Pam Norton
> Pamela A. Norton, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Medicine
> Thomas Jefferson University
> Philadelphia, PA 19107 p_norton at lac.jci.tju.edu
For single-stranded DNA, i.e. outside the context of an actual
transcription unit and especially for oligos, I would agree that the term
"antisense" can co-exist with the proposal currently being voted on (and
is probably unavoidable). I'd go for that.
Dr. Louis H. Ferland
Centre de Recherche, Hotel-Dieu de Montreal
Dept de Nutrition, Universite de Montreal
Phone: (514) 843-2757 FAX: (514) 843-2719
More information about the Methods