Opposite of 'deficient' - Scientific English (Mar/31/2009 )

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

Yeah,they should be good also.

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

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

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...

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

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)...

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

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.

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

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

"bearing" or "expressing".
You could go for "wild type" but it probably will make your language clunky.

If the rats naturally have no XY gene, they are not deficient. "Deficient", to me anyhow, means "lacking, inadequate in amount or degree" of something that would otherwise be expected to be there in sufficient quantity. If the rats do not have the gene, they are not lacking anything.

I would go with "negative" rather than "deficient", or I would label my figure "mouse" and "rat" and explain in the legend.

HomeBrew on Apr 2 2009, 12:09 PM said:

Yeah, that is also true. Better will be just use 'positive' and 'negative' then.

the term is "replete"

Thanx GW.

I was not aware of this term. I looked for the meaning :

re•plete /r{I}'pli:t/ adj.
1 ~ (with sth) (formal) filled with sth; with a full supply of sth: literature replete with drama and excitement
2 (old-fashioned or formal) very full of food: We all felt pleasantly replete.

and googled google scholar to see what I can find.

The ones I came across were mainly regarding 'salt', 'minerals', or 'cells'. As for example

- Effects of phosphorus/calcium-restricted and phosphorus/calcium-replete 32% prot
- … of channel catfish (Ictaluris punctatus) fed iron-deficient and replete diet
- 1 alpha-and 24-hydroxylases from vitamin D-replete
- g unrelated donors and T-replete or-depleted grafts:

But, did not find anything regarding antigen/receptors/genes.

Replete is, as I can see now, the exact opposite of 'deficient' but can it be used with antigen/receptors/genes. As for example, opposite of Rag2-deficient mice means mice not having the gene.

Will be waiting for ur reply. Please provide an example of use also if it is not much trouble. I will be hunting for some too. Thanx