Duplications in nomenclature

Sir

The nomenclature of genes and proteins in molecular and developmental biology, as discussed in a recent leading article in Nature¹, is often illogical and confusing. This problem is sometimes compounded when two proteins without any structural and functional relationship receive the same designation.

In a recent publication by Pan et al.², for example, the authors describe the cloning and characterization of a new membrane-anchored chemokine and propose the name “neurotactin” for this type of molecule.

The term “neurotactin” was, however, used previously to describe a Drosophila membrane protein with an extracellular serine esterase-type protein domain which is dynamically expressed by neuroblasts and other tissues in the fly embryo³,⁴. Drosophila neurotactin has no sequence or functional similarity to the molecule characterized by Pan et al.².

As a solution to such problems, journals should require the authors of manuscripts in which new names or terms are proposed to carry out a computer literature search.

In the case described above, a Medline search would have revealed the duplication and avoided possible confusion to some readers. Luckily, the CX3C membrane-bound chemokine described by Pan et al.² is identical to a molecule for which Bazan et al.⁵ proposed the name “fractalkline”, so an alternative designation is available.