Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo
- - - - -

Opposite of 'deficient'


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Doki

Doki

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 265 posts
2
Neutral

Posted 31 March 2009 - 03:31 AM

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.
Simple living, highnot thinking

#2 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,321 posts
80
Excellent

Posted 31 March 2009 - 03:39 AM

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

If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some than not ask and stay stupid.


#3 Doki

Doki

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 265 posts
2
Neutral

Posted 31 March 2009 - 04:59 AM

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!
Simple living, highnot thinking

#4 T C

T C

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 277 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 31 March 2009 - 05:13 AM

knock out/ knock in?

#5 mdfenko

mdfenko

    an elder

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,744 posts
127
Excellent

Posted 31 March 2009 - 07:15 AM

abundant
talent does what it can
genius does what it must
i do what i get paid to do

#6 little mouse

little mouse

    Missele, the little mouse

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts
2
Neutral

Posted 31 March 2009 - 07:30 AM

over-expressing?

#7 hobglobin

hobglobin

    Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional...

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,522 posts
95
Excellent

Posted 31 March 2009 - 07:44 AM

over-expressing?


or just "expressing"? Showing, present, having as alternatives, but unsure.
One must presume that long and short arguments contribute to the same end. - Epicurus
...except casandra's that belong to the funniest, most interesting and imaginative (or over-imaginative?) ones, I suppose.

#8 Doki

Doki

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 265 posts
2
Neutral

Posted 31 March 2009 - 07:50 AM

knock out/ knock in?

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

abundant

over-expressing?

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

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.
Simple living, highnot thinking

#9 swanny

swanny

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
8
Neutral

Posted 31 March 2009 - 10:57 AM

How about just 'containing', or 'positive'?
Heart disease kills more women than breast cancer, but heart attack symptoms differ from men's symptoms. Get to know your heart... it could save your life.

#10 HomeBrew

HomeBrew

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 930 posts
15
Good

Posted 31 March 2009 - 12:07 PM

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...

#11 Doki

Doki

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 265 posts
2
Neutral

Posted 31 March 2009 - 05:26 PM

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

Yeah,they should be good also.

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
Simple living, highnot thinking

#12 HomeBrew

HomeBrew

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 930 posts
15
Good

Posted 31 March 2009 - 07:18 PM

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...

#13 swanny

swanny

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
8
Neutral

Posted 31 March 2009 - 08:09 PM

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

Yeah,they should be good also.

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)...
Heart disease kills more women than breast cancer, but heart attack symptoms differ from men's symptoms. Get to know your heart... it could save your life.

#14 Doki

Doki

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 265 posts
2
Neutral

Posted 31 March 2009 - 08:26 PM

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

Yeah,they should be good also.

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.
Simple living, highnot thinking

#15 swanny

swanny

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts
8
Neutral

Posted 31 March 2009 - 10:04 PM

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

Yeah,they should be good also.

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.
Heart disease kills more women than breast cancer, but heart attack symptoms differ from men's symptoms. Get to know your heart... it could save your life.




Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.