2010 GO camp Annotation of HTP data: Difference between revisions

From GO Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:


= Meetings =
= Meetings =
==June 7, 2010=
==June 7, 2010==


= 3. Proposed annotation policy=
= 3. Proposed annotation policy=

Revision as of 10:24, 3 June 2010

Members of this working group

Members

1. Background

With the advent of technology and genomic data, it is now possible to study/look at the various aspects of gene products at a genomic level. This implies studying the localization of thousands of gene products or looking at phenotypes in a large scale and so on. These studies typically describe the experimental method in the main text and can't show the results for each gp within the paper and often supply that in the suppl. data. It is time consuming for a curator to look at/review the data for thousands of gps. What is the best way to annotate these types of studies?

2. Review of current GO annotation practices

Meetings

June 7, 2010

3. Proposed annotation policy

4. Examples (papers) and discussion of GO annotation issues

  • Hazbun TR, et al. (2003) Assigning function to yeast proteins by integration of technologies. Mol Cell 12(6):1353-65 PMID:14690591
  • Kumar A, et al. (2002) Subcellular localization of the yeast proteome. Genes Dev 16(6):707-19, PMID 11914276
  • Reinders J, et al. (2006) Toward the complete yeast mitochondrial proteome: multidimensional separation techniques for mitochondrial proteomics. J Proteome Res 5(7):1543-54, PMID 16823961
  • Huh WK, et al. (2003) Global analysis of protein localization in budding yeast. Nature 425(6959):686-91, PMID 14562095
  • Sickmann A, et al. (2003) The proteome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae mitochondria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100(23):13207-12, PMID 14576278

5. Examples of annotation incoherence for the user

Multiple subcellular locations

At the moment, there is no way to distinguish large scale results from specific papers. What will happen with propagations ?

AC: Q42290

GO:0005618 cell wall IDA
GO:0005730 nucleolus IDA
GO:0005739 mitochondrion
GO:0005741 mitochondrial outer membrane	IDA
GO:0005750 mitochondrial respiratory chain complex III IDA
GO:0005758 mitochondrial intermembrane space IDA
GO:0005759 mitochondrial matrix IDA
GO:0005886 plasma membrane IDA
GO:0009507 chloroplast IDA
GO:0016020 membrane IDA

AC: Q9FT52

GO:0005730 nucleolus IDA
GO:0005739 mitochondrion IDA
GO:0005886 plasma membrane IDA
GO:0009507 chloroplast IDA
GO:0009535 chloroplast thylakoid membrane IDA
GO:0009579 thylakoid IDA
GO:0022626 cytosolic ribosome IDA


When no distinction between 2 subcellular locations is made in the paper...

Should we annotate it at all ? PMID 16618929 no distinction between mitochondrion and chloroplasts, but both subcellular locations have been added !!! see page 3 '...corresponding to mitochondria/plastids (which were not resolved from each other within the density gradient used in this study),...'

Is that correct, or shall we discard such result

AC: O04308

GO:0005739 mitochondrion IDA
GO:0009536 plastid IDA

Induction by high-throughput analysis...

Should we be aware about significant induction or just take it as the authors suggest it...? PMID 16463103 response to a lot of biotic and abiotic stresses...with

+
++
+++
++++
>++++

...when the control is + and the induction is ++ is it really significant, when in the same table you can have up to ++++> ? what about propagation after that, especially in this case where a large family is analyzed with differential inductions ?

Limit of TAS statement

PMID 11118137, family of 1984 putative transcription factors

GO:0045449 regulation of transcription TAS

Should we consider such large TAS ?

6. Suggestions for Quality Control procedures


Back to 2010_GO_camp_Meeting_Agenda