Email synopsis

From GO Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Boundary between IMP and IGI


In response to the new draft of the evidence code documentation, some discussion came up between Midori and Val about the usage of the IGI versus the IMP evidence codes. As this issue was not a specific gripe of anyone on the Evidence Code Committee, it was not discussed.

However, one of the goals of this revision was to have guidelines that make sense and I completely see the point that it doesn't really make sense to say that making an inference from a strain with one mutation is a genetic interaction, even when you are annotating a gene other than the one that is mutant.

We were also asked to make a decision tree/flow chart for evidence code decisions (I have a draft I'll send out later), and I think it would be a much simpler decision if there was a clear line between 1 mutant gene and multiple mutant genes.

I think it would make a lot more sense if any annotations made on the basis of mutation, or comparison between alleles, of a single gene should use IMP. Since we already allow use of the with field for IMP to record the mutant allele, it might make more sense to use IMP for any annotation based on a phenotype of a single gene and just record the mutant allele in the with field. Since not all groups track alleles, perhaps we should also allow with for IMP to contain the name of the gene without specifically designating an allele.

Below is transcript of the discussion that occurred on this issue.

-Karen


    • IMP:

> mutation in gene B provides information about gene A being > annotated. For this type of experiment, use the IGI code. and IGI: > Inference about one gene drawn from the phenotype of a mutation in a > different gene

Midori (15 Jun 2007):

 I have always disagreed with this usage: I've argued that IMP would be
 more appropriate, because in the examples given, only one gene is
 mutated, so the "combination of alterations" criterion for IGI is not
 met. But it's an argument that I lost years ago. Oh well.

Val (22 Jun 2007):

 This is still a bit is unclear to me
 "We also use this code for situations where a mutation in gene A
 provides information about the function, process, or component of gene
 B. If a mutation in gene A causes a mislocalization of gene B, gene A
 is annotated to protein localization with gene B in the with/from
 column using IGI."
 In the protein localization example above a mutation in gene A is
 providing information about gene A (protein localization) not about
 gene B (the protein localized).
 I have made a number of these type of annotations to 'protein
 localization, (the fission yeast community are very keen on
 localization dependency experiments for functionally connected gene
 products). However, I thought I had used the wrong evidence code
 (using the existing documentation) and that they should be IMP (I
 wanted to capture the protein localized and at the time I had no other
 way to do it). These were on my todo list to fix.  It now seems they
 are OK as IGI, so I just wanted to double check.........
 The original documentation says:
 # Inference about one gene drawn from the phenotype of a mutation in a
 different gene I don't have an example of this though. I forgot what
 it is used for, although I used to know......

Midori (22 Jun 2007, in response to Val):

 > I have made a number of these type of annotations to 'protein
 > localization, (the fission yeast community are very keen on
 > localization dependency experiments for functionally connected gene
 > products). However, I thought I had used the wrong evidence code
 > (using the existing documentation) and that they should be IMP (I
 > wanted to capture the protein localized and at the time I had no
 > other way to do it). These were on my todo list to fix.  It now
 > seems they are OK as IGI, so I just wanted to double check.........
 Your annotations are consistent with the existing documentation. What
 I'm saying is that I think the documentation should recommend IMP for
 these.
 I think I still wouldn't put B is 'with' with IMP, because a few
 groups would put the allele of A used in the experiment, and others
 would leave 'with' blank.
 >  The original documentation says: # Inference about one gene drawn
 > from the phenotype of a mutation in a different gene I don't have an
 > example of this though. I forgot what it is used for, although I
 > used to know......
 I would also prefer to recommend IMP for these.