This answer to another question satisfactorily answer one of my major confusion.

The convention is that in indicating any sequence feature† in a protein-coding gene on double-stranded DNA, a single strand‡ is represented — the one from which the amino sequence could be read using the genetic code (conceptually, with T substituted for U). Like any other nucleic acid sequence§, it is always written in the 5ʹ to 3ʹ direction in the same manner as the mRNA transcribed from it, without this being explicitly stated.

But I have another related (and overlapping question): (I'm still looking for); is whether there is a standard and universal documentation for this particular convention (IUPAC/ IUBMB/ ICBN/ ICZN/ anything such); because "conventions" are human-made rules, and particularly in field of science (where nucleic acid research is a comparatively new and institution-based (not-folk or not-colloquial) study; without "declared, universally followed, and accessible" documentation; the conventions does not make a sense. It rather feels like a rumor or viral phenomenon. I visited the IUPAC and IUBMB website home pages but I could not locate the documentation from there. Also google keyword search did not found the helpful.

So I specify my question that I want to get the standard/ official source of this convention. I would be highly grateful if anyone kindly mention the source hyperlink.

N.B. This question is follow-up of a closed duplicate question,

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually the word convention can also mean "A way in which something is usually done" and can exist without authority or formal agreement. While this is less common in science than in, say, language, I suspect that it is the case here. I'll be interested to see if you get what you are looking for. $\endgroup$
    – David
    Aug 9, 2018 at 12:39
  • $\begingroup$ Surely; if I get a document from any other source I'll post it here. Btw, unwritten conventions in science and maths are those from prehistoric to medieval past. But nucleic acid research is comparatively newer and institutional (not of a "folk" like). So I felt it weird when a source for such a complicated yet important convention is obscure. $\endgroup$
    – user25568
    Aug 9, 2018 at 12:45


You must log in to answer this question.