Sir

The problems of naming biological objects, such as genes, have been aired in Nature several times. Some of us, for example Drosophila geneticists, have been criticized for what has been seen as a “whimsical” attitude to gene names1.

But there is now another problem. You published a Letter2 by Kreusch et al. about the structure of the tetramerization domain of the Shaker potassium channel. Shaker is the “whimsical” name of a Drosophila gene that encodes a potassium channel, and was so called because mutant flies shake under etherization. It was, I believe, the first potassium-channel gene to be cloned.

In fields other than Drosophila genetics, the name Shaker is used to describe a family of potassium-channel proteins. All of your readers will (I hope) have several genes in their genome encoding proteins of this, and the related Shab, Shaw and Shal families. I have read every word of Kreusch et al.2 in the hope of learning which species donated its gene for this (undoubtedly fine) study. Is it the Drosophila melanogaster Shaker protein? One of the human ones? Or perhaps from the lesser-eared bat, endemic to the lower caves on Mt Elgon in western Kenya? I have looked in the Protein Data Bank, only to find that the record is still being processed.

Do crystallographers have no concern for the variety of life? Have they no sympathy for those of us who are trying to build even bigger and better databases for biologists (I work on Flybase, a Drosophila database)? Are Nature's word limits so severe that a subeditor struck out the organism's name? Or do crystallographers simply not care? Whatever the answer, it is all very frustrating and, worse, bad practice.