Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since when is the universal way to identify a gene its locus? The locus is just the position of a given gene in a particular chromosome. The function of a gene is not exclusively tied to chromosomal location. If I take the sequence for SHH and move it to a different location in the genome under the appropriate promoters, it will still express sonic hedgehog. If I go and shove some other gene sequence into where SHH i…
do you know why HH is named such ? >>the function of a gene is not exclusively tied to chromosomal location "Since when is the universal way to identify a gene its locus" since molecular genetics...and gene mapping. this whole thing started with the idea that gene lables are arbitrary meaningless tags by extension not a problem to change labels to stop a spreadsheet program from mangling data. so now that we both kno…
Gene mapping through genetic linkage maps hasnt really been a major part of identifying and classifying genes for a while - not since sequencing became accessible. You could consider a genome sequence the ultimate physical (not linkage) map, but that's a couple decades out of fashion.
Edit: and im still not sure whether you're defending or attacking the naming of the hh family of genes, but yes, I'm intimately familiar with the hedgehog signaling pathway, and just because the hh loss of function makes fruit fly embryos look spiky doesn't mean that the name is justified or meaningful. Amd a basic problem in ontology is figuring out what that unifying theme should be to name all genes around, its not as easy as in chemistry. But until that's solved, the world loses nothing by changing shh to something less embarrassing so patients don't have to deal with being told their cancer has driver mutations in a pathway involving sonic the hedgehog.
Is your background in biology/molecular biology? I'm happy to share some links to resources if you'd like to read up on the state of the art now, including on gene ontology (GO). GO is an attempt to unify how genes are represented to give more meaning to the representations. I have my doubts about how successful these initiatives will be, but they're still really fascinating stuff. The field has come a long way since Morgan and Sturtevant developed that first linkage map back in 1913. And in epigenetics, there's so much more than TADs. There's the usual methylation/history acetylation etc, but also things like alternative splicing (perhaps not strictly epigenetics) that significantly change what genes do and what sequence even gets translated from the same locus. There's a lot of amazing stuff in happy to share some resources that I think are a good place to get caught up on the state of the art.