Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : son of T/FIF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (318)	12/15/1999 9:40:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 673

Another angle. Many will say that the backbones used by ISIP were "old fashion" and that newer generation ones are better. Could be. Isis itself has dedicated a lot of effort towards developing better backbones. But, the great appeal of antisense versus "traditional" approaches was that no "design" was really needed. You have the RNA sequence, presto, you write down the complementary base-pair sequence and you are almost done. If one can find general rules or simple methods to find the best region to target, then I still give the approach points (Isis has done that to some extent). Now back to the issue of "backbones." The hope is that the "best" (or at leas acceptable) backbone would be universal, so that the simplistic "no design" scenario above would still hold to some extent. If one has to try many backbones and many possible pieces of the RNA to find the one that works for each case, then I'd say your project is starting to look a lot like a "traditional" one. Yes, the simplicity advantage of antisense is no more, and the platform is gone. Are we there yet? i don't know. Here I close another useless post with no answers. PB