Dear Editor,
Analysis of gene expression in breast cancer cells, notably by reverse transcriptase – polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), is widely performed. One promising use of RT-PCR is for the detection of disseminated cancer cells (DTC) in lymph nodes, peripheral blood and bone marrow (for a review, see [1]). Many genes of interest in breast cancer possess multiple names, which may be confusing. However, since 1989, the Human Genome Organisation (HUGO, http://www.hugo-international.org) attempts to ensure that for each gene there is one name and one symbol [2,3].
To determine to which extent HUGO nomenclature is used, I recently performed a PubMed search for abstracts mentioning DTC detection by RT-PCR in breast cancer patients. The resulting 92 articles were searched for occurrences of standard HUGO gene symbols and names, and of other descriptors («aliases») for the markers targeted by RT-PCR.
As shown in Table 1 for four representative markers, the use of HUGO symbols and names is dramatically low, as compared to that of aliases. The case of SCGB2A2 (gene name: « Secretoglobin family 2A, member 2 ») is probably the most striking among all. This symbol was not found in 34/34 abstracts of papers reporting on the detection of the gene it designates. Instead, the gene was variably symbolized as MAM, hMAM, hMAM-A, MG, MGB1 or MMG, reflecting at least three different names: mammaglobin, mammaglobin A, and mammaglobin 1. Many people performing markers analysis in breast cancer are familiar with the word « mammaglobin ». However, there are two different mammaglobins, and a PubMed search using the word « mammoglobin » does not retrieve all papers reporting on SCGB2A2 expression analysis.
As reflected by this example, the breast cancer community has not widely adopted the HUGO nomenclature. This impairs the efficient retrieval of information from databases. I suggest that the mention of standard names or symbols in abstracts in place of, or, at least, next to aliases, should be made mandatory. More generally, all actors of research should pay more attention to the usage of standard nomenclature. Indeed, the task of mentioning genes in papers by their official names and symbols will require the collaboration of authors, journals (editors and reviewers). Regarding journals, the pursuit of unique standard gene name and symbol has been encouraged for years by most journals primarily concerned with human genetics. In contrast, the frequency with which HUGO nomenclature is used is still low in clinical journals that publish most of the data concerning tumor cell identification.
To agree on a particular gene name not only will make one's own research easier, but will also be helpful to the present generation, as well as future generations, of researchers who are about to enter molecular clinical research.
References:
1. Lacroix M (2006) Significance, detection and markers of disseminated breast cancer cells. Endocr Relat Cancer 13(4):1033-1067
2. White J, Wain H, Bruford E et al (1999) Promoting a standard nomenclature for genes and proteins. Nature 402(6760):347
3. Bruford EA, Lush MJ, Wright MW et al (2008) The HGNC Database in 2008: a resource for the human genome. Nucleic Acids Res 36(Database issue):D445-D448.
| KRT19 (0 / 46) | Keratin 19 (0 / 46) | Cytokeratin 19; cytokeratin-19; CK19; CK-19 |
|---|---|---|
| SCGB2A2 (0 / 34) | Secretoglobin family 2A, member 2 (0 / 34) | Mammaglobin; mammglobin A; mammaglobin 1; MAM; mam; hMAM; hMAM-A; MG; MGB1; MMG |
| SERPINB5 (0 / 12) | Serine (or cysteine) proteinase inhibitor, clade B (ovalbumin), member 5 (0 / 12) | Maspin; MAS |
| TACSTD1 (1 / 9) | Tumor-associated calcium signal transducer 1 (1 / 9) | Epithelial glycoprotein 2; epithelial glycoprotein 40; EGP40; EGP2; KS1/4; GA733-2 |
