Just been reading a review on the Notch signaling pathway (The Notch signalling system: ..., Nat. Rev. Gen., Sept. 12, doi:10.1038/nrg3272). It is a nice and easy read (which is very good for a review) and explains many things in ample detail.
Just wondering why almost everything to be published at this level these days seemingly has to be brought into connection with cancer? The review would be equally informative without that information (and I just guess every cell signaling pathway can be brought into connection with cancer, so what is it about that?).
Further the statement that notch is special in having an 'exeptional sensivity [...] to gene dosage' stikes as a bit odd. For sure it is special in inducing defects when being in the genome just once, or thrice (instead of the diploid set up: twice). However, could one not say that morphogen forming genes are also acting via their dosage, in this case the dosage of protein at a certain point? Of course dosage is a defined term, but let's just look at the meaning. But maybe that's wrong? Please comment.
Finally suggesting that 'Notch should no longer be considered in isolation as a strictly linear pathway' is a bit, well maybe just weak as a final statement. Everything is just interconnected, isn't it? Which pathway is action on it's own?
I very much like the advocation for 'multipronged approaches' and the interaction maps.
Ist das spannend genug jetzt Marike? :D
No comments:
Post a Comment