Sir

Your editorial on the state of gene and protein nomenclature struck a chord with those of us recently engaged in compiling the Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (Nature 401, 411; 1999). Formidable complexities face the groups endeavouring to bring order into the situation.

In the first place, one has to distinguish the roles of systematic names and common names. A systematic name aims to provide unambiguous information concerning some aspect of the substance described. In the case of organic chemicals, the property addressed is structure; in the case of enzymes, the enzyme reaction. Which property of a protein would be addressed in the provision of a systematic name — structure, function or origin?

Whichever property is addressed, it is likely that the systematic name would be too unwieldy for everyday use, hence the need for common, or trivial, names. The current fashion for naming proteins following the convention for genes, using three letters followed by a number, proves inadequate in several ways for use as a common name, especially in that it is not descriptive, a property highly desirable in a common name.

Your proposed insistence that authors should as far as possible indicate all related names for the protein they are describing is indeed a step in the right direction.