22 replies to this topic

[Doki]

one animal is deficient in XY antigen or gene. Then, we refer to them as XY-deficient animal. What is the opposite of that?

Can U also provide an example used in some paper for reference?

Thank U.

[pito]

Nabi, you should ask this in the following forum: Paper and Grant Writing, Publishing and Presentation

I think there you would be helped a bit faster then in the chit chat forum

[Doki]

pito, on Mar 31 2009, 08:39 PM, said:

Nabi, you should ask this in the following forum: Paper and Grant Writing, Publishing and Presentation

I think there you would be helped a bit faster then in the chit chat forum

Thx. . done!

[T C]

knock out/ knock in?

[mdfenko]

abundant

[little mouse]

over-expressing?

[hobglobin]

little mouse, on Mar 31 2009, 05:30 PM, said:

over-expressing?

or just "expressing"? Showing, present, having as alternatives, but unsure.

[Doki]

T C, on Mar 31 2009, 10:13 PM, said:

knock out/ knock in?

mm, not quite. Naturally having and not having the gene expression

mdfenko, on Apr 1 2009, 12:15 AM, said:

abundant

little mouse, on Apr 1 2009, 12:30 AM, said:

over-expressing?

Not over expressed . . just that one has the antigen and the other does not have.

hobglobin, on Apr 1 2009, 12:44 AM, said:

little mouse, on Mar 31 2009, 05:30 PM, said:

over-expressing?

or just "expressing"? Showing, present, having as alternatives, but unsure.

Yeah, these sound good. I was also thinking of XY-bearing. Seems like there is no any particular word for this and I might have to use one from this list. But, they are appropriate.

Thank U everyone.

[swanny]

How about just 'containing', or 'positive'?

[HomeBrew]

Nabi, on Mar 31 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

one animal is deficient in XY antigen or gene. Then, we refer to them as XY-deficient animal. What is the opposite of that?

wild-type with respect to XY, XY-normal, XY-positive...

[Doki]

swanny, on Apr 1 2009, 03:57 AM, said:

How about just 'containing', or 'positive'?

Yeah,they should be good also.

HomeBrew, on Apr 1 2009, 05:07 AM, said:

Nabi, on Mar 31 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

one animal is deficient in XY antigen or gene. Then, we refer to them as XY-deficient animal. What is the opposite of that?

wild-type with respect to XY, XY-normal, XY-positive...

for wild-type and XY-normal : I cannot use these because as I mentioned before, they are not transgenic but naturally lack the antigen. So, for the species, refering them as 'wild' or 'normal' will not be appropriate.

Can we summarise the list as :

1. XY-bearing vs. XY-deficient.
2. XY- having vs. XY-deficient.
3. XY-positive vs. XY-negative.
4. XY-containing vs. XY-deficient

[HomeBrew]

In genetics, "wild-type" does not imply "as found in nature", it implies the type to which you are comparing. Many people make or isolate mutants of E. coli DH5-alpha, and then compare those mutants against the "wild-type" DH5-alpha from whence they came, but the parental strain is far from natural (genotype: fhuA2 Δ(argF-lacZ)U169 phoA glnV44 Φ80 Δ(lacZ)M15 gyrA96 recA1 relA1 endA1 thi-1 hsdR17).

It may still not be an appropriate phrase for you needs, but I thought I'd just clear that up a bit...

[swanny]

Nabi, on Apr 1 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

swanny, on Apr 1 2009, 03:57 AM, said:

How about just 'containing', or 'positive'?

Yeah,they should be good also.

HomeBrew, on Apr 1 2009, 05:07 AM, said:

Nabi, on Mar 31 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

one animal is deficient in XY antigen or gene. Then, we refer to them as XY-deficient animal. What is the opposite of that?

wild-type with respect to XY, XY-normal, XY-positive...

for wild-type and XY-normal : I cannot use these because as I mentioned before, they are not transgenic but naturally lack the antigen. So, for the species, refering them as 'wild' or 'normal' will not be appropriate.

Can we summarise the list as :

1. XY-bearing vs. XY-deficient.
2. XY- having vs. XY-deficient.
3. XY-positive vs. XY-negative.
4. XY-containing vs. XY-deficient

I would go for option 3. 1 and 2 don't sound like especially good English (a bit clunky or perhaps just poor grammar), and 4 might confuse, if I understand you correctly. The untreated animals do not have XY and treated ones do, right? The implication of Option 4, however, is that the XY-deficient animals have had something taken away.
As another alternate, you might be able to use "transgenic" instead of "XY-positive" (or containing or expressing)...

[Doki]

swanny, on Apr 1 2009, 01:09 PM, said:

Nabi, on Apr 1 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

swanny, on Apr 1 2009, 03:57 AM, said:

How about just 'containing', or 'positive'?

Yeah,they should be good also.

HomeBrew, on Apr 1 2009, 05:07 AM, said:

Nabi, on Mar 31 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

one animal is deficient in XY antigen or gene. Then, we refer to them as XY-deficient animal. What is the opposite of that?

wild-type with respect to XY, XY-normal, XY-positive...

for wild-type and XY-normal : I cannot use these because as I mentioned before, they are not transgenic but naturally lack the antigen. So, for the species, refering them as 'wild' or 'normal' will not be appropriate.

Can we summarise the list as :

1. XY-bearing vs. XY-deficient.
2. XY- having vs. XY-deficient.
3. XY-positive vs. XY-negative.
4. XY-containing vs. XY-deficient

I would go for option 3. 1 and 2 don't sound like especially good English (a bit clunky or perhaps just poor grammar), and 4 might confuse, if I understand you correctly. The untreated animals do not have XY and treated ones do, right? The implication of Option 4, however, is that the XY-deficient animals have had something taken away.
As another alternate, you might be able to use "transgenic" instead of "XY-positive" (or containing or expressing)...

mm, I have not been able to put my question correctly. There is gene for XY gene in mice and not in rats. So, mice expresses XY gene but not rats. (naturally - no genetic manipulations or any other interventions).

So, wanted to find the right term to put a caption. I have the description in the text but want to label the figure with just 1-2 words.

Best will be then

Mice : XY-postive >> Rat : XY-negative

or

Mice : XY-expressing >> Rat : XY-deficient.

[swanny]

Nabi, on Apr 1 2009, 03:26 PM, said:

swanny, on Apr 1 2009, 01:09 PM, said:

Nabi, on Apr 1 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

swanny, on Apr 1 2009, 03:57 AM, said:

How about just 'containing', or 'positive'?

Yeah,they should be good also.

HomeBrew, on Apr 1 2009, 05:07 AM, said:

Nabi, on Mar 31 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

one animal is deficient in XY antigen or gene. Then, we refer to them as XY-deficient animal. What is the opposite of that?

wild-type with respect to XY, XY-normal, XY-positive...

for wild-type and XY-normal : I cannot use these because as I mentioned before, they are not transgenic but naturally lack the antigen. So, for the species, refering them as 'wild' or 'normal' will not be appropriate.

Can we summarise the list as :

1. XY-bearing vs. XY-deficient.
2. XY- having vs. XY-deficient.
3. XY-positive vs. XY-negative.
4. XY-containing vs. XY-deficient

I would go for option 3. 1 and 2 don't sound like especially good English (a bit clunky or perhaps just poor grammar), and 4 might confuse, if I understand you correctly. The untreated animals do not have XY and treated ones do, right? The implication of Option 4, however, is that the XY-deficient animals have had something taken away.
As another alternate, you might be able to use "transgenic" instead of "XY-positive" (or containing or expressing)...

mm, I have not been able to put my question correctly. There is gene for XY gene in mice and not in rats. So, mice expresses XY gene but not rats. (naturally - no genetic manipulations or any other interventions).

So, wanted to find the right term to put a caption. I have the description in the text but want to label the figure with just 1-2 words.

Best will be then

Mice : XY-postive >> Rat : XY-negative

or

Mice : XY-expressing >> Rat : XY-deficient.

In that case, I'd go with positive/negative, because the text will have gone into all the fiddly detail.