Annotation Conf. Call 2020-01-28: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
*Relations to discuss this week: | *Relations to discuss this week: | ||
**'activated by' | **'activated by' | ||
**https://github.com/geneontology/go-annotation/issues/2718 | |||
**'activated by' had been used to identify a chemical substance that increases the activity of the gene product. | **'activated by' had been used to identify a chemical substance that increases the activity of the gene product. | ||
**We would like to instead model this with a 'binding activity' that 'directly positively regulates' a second, or main, molecular function enabled by the gene/gene product | **We would like to instead model this with a 'binding activity' that 'directly positively regulates' a second, or main, molecular function enabled by the gene/gene product | ||
Revision as of 17:31, 27 January 2020
Agenda and Minutes
- Present:
Annotation Relations
- Goal is to review use of relations across annotations (standard and GO-CAM) and the ontology to ensure consistency wherever possible
- Relations to discuss this week:
- 'activated by'
- https://github.com/geneontology/go-annotation/issues/2718
- 'activated by' had been used to identify a chemical substance that increases the activity of the gene product.
- We would like to instead model this with a 'binding activity' that 'directly positively regulates' a second, or main, molecular function enabled by the gene/gene product
- The aim is to capture regulatory molecules, but not things like co-factors.
- Sample GO-CAM model: http://noctua.geneontology.org/editor/graph/gomodel:5db9c9a500000296