Annotation Conf. Call 2016-04-26: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Also worth noting that if we decide that this is IEP, we will need to change the rules on the validation script that checks GAFs since IEP is currently only allowed for Process annotations. | Also worth noting that if we decide that this is IEP, we will need to change the rules on the validation script that checks GAFs since IEP is currently only allowed for Process annotations. | ||
==Switching over automated pipelines== | |||
How difficult would it be for groups to switch over their automated pipelines to allow us to give accurate attribution to groups who make the annotations? | |||
==Annotation Consistency Exercise== | ==Annotation Consistency Exercise== | ||
[[Category: Annotation Working Group]] | [[Category: Annotation Working Group]] | ||
Revision as of 11:40, 20 April 2016
Conference call Format
Standard Bluejeans link from meting home page
Agenda
IDA or IEP for an isoform annotation
Recently Karen was annotating a paper where an isoform-agnostic antibody was used to detect the presence of a protein in a cell. Subsequent experiments showed that an RNA coding for a specific isoform had the same localization, supporting that the protein isoform was localized to that component. The question came up as to whether we should use IDA or IEP for evidence to support this. Since the experiment did not address the protein isoform itself, is it an IDA?
Also worth noting that if we decide that this is IEP, we will need to change the rules on the validation script that checks GAFs since IEP is currently only allowed for Process annotations.
Switching over automated pipelines
How difficult would it be for groups to switch over their automated pipelines to allow us to give accurate attribution to groups who make the annotations?