Re: [SO-devel] New term suggestion

[Francis O. <fr...@bi...>]

What about all of the chromosomes?

from our favorite FT documentation:

Qualifier       /organelle=
Definition      type of membrane-bound intracellular
                 structure from which the
                 sequence was obtained
Value format    mitochondrion, nucleomorph, plastid,
                 mitochondrion:kinetoplast,
                 plastid:chloroplast, plastid:apicoplast,
                 plastid:chromoplast, plastid:cyanelle,
                 plastid:leucoplast, plastid:proplastid,
Examples        /organelle="hydrogenosome"
                 /organelle="mitochondrion"
                 /organelle="nucleomorph"
                 /organelle="plastid"
                 /organelle="mitochondrion:kinetoplast"
                 /organelle="plastid:chloroplast"
                 /organelle="plastid:apicoplast"
                 /organelle="plastid:chromoplast"
                 /organelle="plastid:cyanelle"
                 /organelle="plastid:leucoplast"
                 /organelle="plastid:proplastid"
Comments        modifier text limited to values from controlled list



f.


--
BF Francis Ouellette        http://bioinformatics.ubc.ca/ouellette





Michael Ashburner (Genetics) wrote:
> David
> 
> I think the term 'mitochondrial chromosome' could well be added
> and, for completion also 'chloroplast chromosome', as types of
> chromosome.
> 
> Karen: What do you think ?
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> Subject: Re: [SO-devel] New term suggestion
> To: son...@li..., son...@li...
> From: David Emmert <em...@mo...>
> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:05:04 -0500
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> 
>>> genome has been suggested as a new term.
>>> I am wary of this because a genome is for the most part discontinuous,
>>> and stitching it up to make a region of continuous sequence would be
>>> somewhat arbitrary.
>>>
>>> Anyone else have an opinion?
> 
> 
> Just curious...  What about mitochondrial genomes?
> We're using "chromosome" in chado for the Dmel mitochondrial genome...
> 
> Best,
> 
> -Dave
> 
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 6:33, Michael Ashburner (Genetics) wrote:
> 
>>I agree it has no place.
>>
>>M
>>
>>
>>> To: son...@li...
>>> From: Karen Eilbeck <ei...@fr...>
>>
>>http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. Report problems to
>>http://sf.net/tracker/?func=add&group_id=1&atid=200001 1.0 
>>FORGED_RCVD_HELO
>> Received: contains a forged HELO
>>
>>> Subject: [SO-devel] New term suggestion
>>
>><mailto:son...@li...?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>> List-Id: SO developers <song-devel.lists.sourceforge.net>
>>> List-Post: <mailto:son...@li...>
>>> List-Help: 
>>><mailto:son...@li...?subject=help>
>>> List-Subscribe: 
>>><https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/song-devel>,
>>
>><mailto:son...@li...?subject=subscribe>
>>
>>> List-Archive: 
>>><http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=song-devel>
>>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:25:03 -0700
>>> X-Keywords:
>>>
>>> genome has been suggested as a new term.
>>> I am wary of this because a genome is for the most part discontinuous,
>>> and stitching it up to make a region of continuous sequence would be
>>> somewhat arbitrary.
>>>
>>> Anyone else have an opinion?
>>> --Karen
>>>
>>> Initial Comment:
>>> Suggestion: How about a term "genome" ?
>>>
>>> It itself is used within other term names, their definitions, and 
>>>even a
>>> relationship (genome_of).   Primarily, I was simply hoping to reason
>>> that a
>>> chromosome was part_of a genome, but presumably this term would be
>>> wide-reaching (many possible "parts")...
>>>
>>> Possible defs:
>>> http://www.google.com/search?oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:Genome