I couldn't help but notice just how non-descriptive the gene names that modern genetics is using. Currently I'm reading "The new science of Evo Devo" by Sean B. Carroll and here are some examples of gene names used:
- Krox 20
- Hoxa2, Hoxb4
- sonic hedgehog
While these names identify genes uniquely, they do very little to express what and where the gene does, or how it is related to other genes (While FGF8 may be related to FGF7, it's relationship to XYZ10 is not obvious).
I get the need to uniquely identify genes , and the book is an example of just how hard it is to presently write about a lot of genes at once. The author creates a picture of what's going on, but the gene names get in the way. Even in cases where a gene has a semi-descriptive name, like "eyeless", the reader has to remember that it's actually the gene responsible for eye formation.
Are there are any efforts underway to systematize or name genes for a given organism in an expressive manner?
As a programmer, I write code for a living, and having descriptive names makes it easier to look at someone else's code, read about code and even discuss it with novices. For example:
Modern programming tools make using descriptive names easier, because of autocomplete - typing in the first few letters of a programming structure completes the rest. Even google has a list of autocomplete suggestions.
We are all familiar with the Internet, where biology.stackexchange.com/questionname resolves into a specific page. Stackexchange is the site we are visiting, and Biology is a subset of that site. There are other biology websites, but biology.stackexchange.com uniquely identifies this site. The use of "biology" in the address gives readers a general idea of what the site is about and relates it to other biology sites. Our web browsers resolve the address into a proper string of bytes and get the right page. What if we name genes like like
,and whatever technology we use would actually resolve that descriptive name into a gene or a series of gene interactions?