Annotation Conf. Call, Mar 22, 2011
1. Finalized documentation for the 'Response to' guidelines agreed at the Geneva GO annotation Camp (Pascale)
2. Discussion on the possible organization of curator guidelines in the GO Consortium annotation web pages (Rama)- http://www.geneontology.org/newIndex.shtml
3. New proposed annotation QC checks (Emily)
- Could groups let me know if there is any semantics in their use of pipes to separate identifiers in their 'with' field? Does anyone other than MGI use commas? (Emily)
- As I understand it (and I can't find any documentation), most groups use pipes (|) to separate identifiers in the 'with' where 2 identifiers support the annotation of the same GO term from the same paper supported by the same evidence code.
As many database schemas do not allow the input of GO annotations that only differ by the contents of the 'with', or because the database preferred this less redundant format, these values are piped together.
However if it were possible to have an annotation line for each with field identifier, then it always be correct to display this example annotation:
Protein A - GO:0005515 - PMID:12345 -IPI-UniProtKB:Q61371|UniProtKB:Q8BXG3
alternatively as two separate ones:
Protein A - GO:0005515 - PMID:12345 - IPI - UniProtKB:Q61371
Protein A - GO:0005515 - PMID:12345 - IPI - UniProtKB:Q8BXG3
And would this be correct for all manual annotations using evidence codes where the with field usage is legal? (IC, IMP, IPI, IGC, IGI, ISS)