Difference between revisions of "Annotation Conf. Call, May 26, 2015"

From GO Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Unresolved questions from Curation Consistency exercise)
(Unresolved questions from Curation Consistency exercise)
Line 19: Line 19:
 
**transcription factors?
 
**transcription factors?
  
* March Yeast paper- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12048186
+
===March Yeast paper- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12048186===
 +
* Use of in_the_presence_of and in_the_absence_of relationships in col-16.
 +
** these relationships are slated for obsoletion. We could capture the data using different relationships
 +
** BFA1 has inhibitory role on the Tem1 GTPase when it is acting alone. It is okay to say that it is acting alone and no need to use in_the_absence_of: Bub2.
 +
** Bub2 gets GAP activity that can activate Tem1 GTPase (when present together as a complex with Bfa1) . part_of: BFA1-BUB2 complex, has_regulation_target:Tem1p
 +
** Would you annotate Bfa1 to GAP activity or contributes to GAP activity? Data in the paper points to BFA1 being an inhibitor by itself. So may it shouldn't get this term. May be its role is to bridge Tem1 and Bub2 but there is not enough data in the paper to give it a protein binding, bridging annotation

Revision as of 14:01, 19 May 2015


Agenda

Unresolved questions from Curation Consistency exercise

April Mouse paper- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=24349431

  • Is cystin regulating necdin? There is no evidence to show that cystin is regulating necdin - What would constitute evidence for this? The paper does show physical interaction between the two proteins and an effect on activity when co-transfected. So we can't put necdin as the regulation target of cystin. How would you capture the fact that cystin has the antagonist effect when necdin is present but it has the opposite role when it is acting alone? Would you use the evidence code or Col-16?
  • Would you use IGI as the evidence for how cystin interacts with necdin? Is cotransfection considered IGI? Both Rama and Midori thought this was not IGI based on current definition. Ruth, Rebecca and Rachael felt this would be IGI. Kimberly - I had originally used the IDA evidence code for the co-transfection experiment, but it seems that what we are really trying to capture with annotating this experiment is a functional interaction between two gene products. Although the type of experiment differs from traditional genetic experiments using multiply mutant strains, the conclusion is similar: these gene products functionally interact, even if we don't know the exact mechanism. The IGI evidence code therefore seems more appropriate to me now.
    • Reason for use of IGI: 2 cDNA constructs (cystin and necdin) transfected into a cell line, the effect is only seen when both constructs are present, therefore the use of IGI code enables the cystin to be annotated to negative reg of transcription (child term), and the addition of the necdin protein ID in the WITH field (the reciprocal annotation would not be created).
    • Reason against use of IGI: When only one of these genes is transfected into the cells the annotations created (pos reg of transcription, child term) are supported by the IDA evidence code not the IMP evidence code. The GOC documentation on IGI states: Includes any combination of alterations in the sequence (mutation) or expression of more than one gene/gene product.
    • Reason for using Col-16: The evidence code for the single transfection is IDA, therefore the IGI code can’t be used. Using Col-16 enables this information to be captured.
    • Reasons against using Col-16: There is no suitable relationship available to capture this data. There would be a lack of consistency in the application of evidence codes, e.g. If mutant and wt double transfectants were used then the IGI evidence code would be applied, and there would be information in the WITH field. Where as double wt transfectants would have no information in the WITH field.
  • Chromatin- is not just histones and DNA. Should Txn factors be annotated to chromatin? Would you make a CC annotation to chromatin over a MF annotation to chromatin binding when you have ChiP evidence? Karen mentioned that in the paper she worked on with the Norway folks they decided all ChiP experiments should be CC. David mentioned that the way he decides between the two is : When you are binding chromatin you are not part of the chromatin. Is txn factor part of chromatin? We need to resolve this issue at the next GOC meeting (Midori has some rules, so does David). We will collect some use cases and present it at the GOC meeting. What should be included in the definition of chromatin? Note that we also have terms like 'transcriptionally active chromatin' and 'transcriptionally silent chromatin'.
    • DNA
    • RNA
    • histones
    • histone modifying complexes? - these are not children of chromatin in the CC
    • chromtin re-modeling complexes? - these are also not children of chromatin in the CC
    • transcription factors?

March Yeast paper- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12048186

  • Use of in_the_presence_of and in_the_absence_of relationships in col-16.
    • these relationships are slated for obsoletion. We could capture the data using different relationships
    • BFA1 has inhibitory role on the Tem1 GTPase when it is acting alone. It is okay to say that it is acting alone and no need to use in_the_absence_of: Bub2.
    • Bub2 gets GAP activity that can activate Tem1 GTPase (when present together as a complex with Bfa1) . part_of: BFA1-BUB2 complex, has_regulation_target:Tem1p
    • Would you annotate Bfa1 to GAP activity or contributes to GAP activity? Data in the paper points to BFA1 being an inhibitor by itself. So may it shouldn't get this term. May be its role is to bridge Tem1 and Bub2 but there is not enough data in the paper to give it a protein binding, bridging annotation