Edit Annotation: Annotation:3467

Jump to: navigation, search

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your username or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by DNSBL. The reason given is Your IP address is listed as an open proxy in the DNSBL used by Planteome Annotation Wiki - Test..

  • Start of block: 12:54, 23 February 2020
  • Expiry of block: 12:54, 23 February 2020
  • Intended blockee:

You can contact DNSBL or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the "email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is, and the block ID is #. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

AT4G37100.1 (Arabidopsis thaliana)


Species Name:
Gene Symbol:
Gene Name:
Gene Synonyms: AP22_68, AT4G37100, AP22.68
Gene Locus:
Gene Type:
EC Number(s):
Has Phenotype:

Add external references for this annotation.

Add, edit, or remove ontology references here.

Ontology Term ID Term Name Aspect Evidence Code Evidence Assigned By
Gene Ontology default Error: no local variable "term_id" was set. Error: no local variable "term_name" was set. Error: no local variable "term_aspect" was set. IDA
Gene Ontology default Error: no local variable "term_id" was set. Error: no local variable "term_name" was set. Error: no local variable "term_aspect" was set. IEA INTERPRO:IPR015421

Add sequence references for this annotation.

Add a reference to a publication listed with PubMed or the DOI registry here.

Need to add a reference to a publication without a PubMed ID or DOI (Digital Object Identifier)?
Add a new publication reference

   Thanks, guys!>>While serif fonts are more readable on the prenitd page, they look cluttered to me on the web, especially when they are small.Hmmmmm, one of my pet peeves ;-)I come from a print background, where serif fonts are definitely believed to be more readable.  So I admit that I have a bias.  Times is a horrible font on screen; its x-height (the height of the lower-case letters) is smaller than most other fonts, and therefore far less readable at the same "size."  A lot of the online readability studies looked at Times as the serif font, and I agree that it deserves to lose there.But I'm not really happy with the serif fonts I can easily use in Blogger.  To me, they tend to blur together in long paragraphs, and I feel like my eye starts to lose track of the lines.  Georgia (the font I'm using) has a nice large x-height I feel like I can track the lines a little better when there are serifs.But I know sans-serif is much more popular online.  One person even told me once that I was hurting my credibility by using serif fonts.I'll check out those article references, and even though I wrote a lot above, I am actually open to being persuaded on this one.  After all, the blog is supposed to be for you folks, not me.  So thanks for the suggestion, and I'll consider it seriously.Anyone else have an opinion?>>sans serif fonts were developed specifically for electronic mediaNope, they  as headline fonts long before the debut of electronic media.  But there have been some nice sans-serif font designs created especially for electronic media, so the spirit of your comment is right.
| Publication:6615 
|| PMID:17317660