10 November 2020 PAINT Conference Call: Difference between revisions

From GO Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
Line 9: Line 9:
     MF -> enables
     MF -> enables
     CC -> is_active_in
     CC -> is_active_in
    CC childre of protein-containing complexes -> part_of


==Following up on previous items==
==Following up on previous items==
Line 20: Line 21:


-> Anushya and Huaiyu say this is already implemented, the node is pink, Anushya will send an example  
-> Anushya and Huaiyu say this is already implemented, the node is pink, Anushya will send an example  


===Mismatches Reference proteomes and MOD taxon IDs===
===Mismatches Reference proteomes and MOD taxon IDs===
Line 55: Line 55:
-> We could probably just use the genus, instead of 'bacteria'
-> We could probably just use the genus, instead of 'bacteria'


===Review tree===
PTHR42819 - see https://github.com/geneontology/go-annotation/issues/3224
How much evidence is enough ?


[[Category:PAINT]]
[[Category:PAINT]]

Revision as of 12:02, 5 November 2020

Discussion Topics

Default qualifiers

See https://github.com/pantherdb/fullgo_paint_update/issues/45


   BP -> involved_in
   MF -> enables
   CC -> is_active_in
   CC childre of protein-containing complexes -> part_of

Following up on previous items

Contradictory NOT annotations

see PTHR47279 - bad example because I removed the primary annotations - but iso-2 was annotated to

  • NOT GO:0000981 DNA-binding transcription factor activity, RNA polymerase II-specific

and

  • NOT GO:0006357 regulation of transcription by RNA polymerase II

(maybe this is still there - depending on the release cycles of the respective resources)

-> Anushya and Huaiyu say this is already implemented, the node is pink, Anushya will send an example

Mismatches Reference proteomes and MOD taxon IDs

Paul generated a spreadsheet with species with > 100 EXP annotations https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jN2hrTkGIRNqOb1hSCX4MGSuzzXydS7C-YhUzXb01X4/edit#gid=0

I’ve highlighted in red the ones where the taxon IDs do not match between PANTHER/UniProt and GO (four total), and in yellow the ones where there is a distinct gene/protein ID space used in the GAF that we might want to double check to make sure it’s in the UniProt mapping file so we can ensure that we can match those up. I assume the standard MOD IDs will be in the mapping files, so I didn’t highlight those. I’ve also noted several other cases, where there are additional experimental GO annotations but to a distinct taxon ID. Not sure how we want to handle this.


Known issues:

  • For pombe, UniProt Reference Proteomes uses taxon:284812, while pombase uses taxon:4896 (see email exchange 'pombe taxon').
  • For Aspergillus fumigatus, the GAF is submitted by AspGD using taxID 746128, and UniProt has mapped those annotations to sequences with taxID 330879 (which NCBI shows as a child strain of 746128), so this one is similar to the S. pombe case in that UniProt uses the strain level rather than the species.
  • For Leishmania major, the GAF is submitted by GeneDB using taxID 347515, and UniProt has mapped those annotations to sequences with taxID 5664 (which NCBI shows as a parent species to strain 347515), so this one is opposite to the S. pombe case in that UniProt uses the species level rather than strain.
  • Maria Martin also write about S. cerevisiae: This is also true for S.cerevisiae where UniProt uses the reference strain S288c (taxon:559292), and there even less of the annotations are actually coming from experiments in that particular strain, yet UniProt (and SGD) annotate everything in GO to that taxon.
  • WRT species, this is what UniProt/GOA does (from Alex):

Hi Huaiyu, We are using mapping provided by aspergillusgenome.org here http://www.aspergillusgenome.org/download/External_id_mappings/ If it has mapping to UniProt accessions, which belong to strain taxID, that what is used. We don't do mappings ourself we relaying on the DB authority to assign mapping to UniProt. I guess they are doing their best to do so. In the QuickGO fro example we include descendants by default if you filter by taxID. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/QuickGO/annotations?taxonId=746128&taxonUsage=descendants I'm not sure, but perhaps similar strategy can be applied to PAINT annotations. Best regards, Alex


Update on Taxon constraints

  • Dustin prepares a table at every release
  • ACTION: Dustin to check with Jim on where are the 'full' taxon constraints are, so that we use the same.


New discussion points

common_name in go-reference-species.yaml is not unique

https://github.com/geneontology/go-site/issues/1564 -> We could probably just use the genus, instead of 'bacteria'


Review tree

PTHR42819 - see https://github.com/geneontology/go-annotation/issues/3224 How much evidence is enough ?