From: Mike Clark (mrc7@cam.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Aug 13 1998 - 04:36:05 EST
On Tue 11 Aug, Barren, Phil wrote: > > Mab > How about some discussion on this term > > PB > :-) The trouble is that there are just too many misused terms and not enough time to spend correcting everyone. Sooner or later we just have to gracefully give in to common usage! Coming from Cesar Milstein's laboratory in the 1970s my pet hate is the "misuse" of the acronym "CD". Having learnt to refer to my antibodies as a CD1, CD2, CD3 antibody etc I always cringe at the usage anti-CD1, anti-CD2, anti-CD3 etc. According to my scientific upbringing an anti-CD3 antibody would perhaps be the anti-idiotype of a CD3 antibody. However even in my own publications I am now guilty of the use of anti-CD3! This is because the editor of the European Journal of Immunology carefully went through one of my manuscripts changing all of my uses of CD3 into anti-CD3 including in the title. When I saw the proofs I immediately contacted them and tried to persuade them to change them back. However I was told that "anti- was now the commonly accepted usage understood by the majority of scientists". Oh well.... Mike Clark, <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/> -- o/ \\ // || ,_ o M.R. Clark, PhD. Division of Immunology <\__,\\ // __o || / /\, Cambridge University, Dept. Pathology "> || _`\<,_ // \\ \> | Tennis Court Rd., Cambridge CB2 1QP ` || (_)/ (_) // \\ \_ Tel.+44 1223 333705 Fax.+44 1223 333875
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:35:22 EST
