Annotation Extension Relation Documentation Jamboree: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Other) |
m (→Other) |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
Can has_input be used with the domain GO:0065007 ! biological regulation? | Can has_input be used with the domain GO:0065007 ! biological regulation? | ||
===Examples needed=== | |||
'''1. has_input''' | |||
We need an example where the has_input ID is folded to be incorporated into the GO term. Preferably an example other than response to (has_input ID) |
Revision as of 15:02, 6 June 2014
Documentation pages
http://wiki.geneontology.org/index.php/Folding_and_Unfolding
Issues arising
Folded/Unfolded annotations
1. has_input relationship would annotations like these ever be folded?
DB (Col 2) | Object (Col 3) | GO ID (Col 5) | Reference (Col 6) | Evidence (Col 7) | Extension (Col 16) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q8WY54 | PPM1E | GO:0035690 cellular response to drugs | PMID:20801214 | IDA | has_input(CHEBI:6801 metformin) |
O14672 | ADAM10 | GO:0006509 membrane protein ectodomain proteolysis | PMID:18676862 | IMP | has_input(UNIPROT:Q29983 MICA) |
Other
1. acts_on_population_of
Should this be a plural relationship? Pretty much everything else in GO is singular.
2. When to use has_input relationship and when to use has_regulation_target
has_regulation_target is limited to the domain GO:0065007 ! biological regulation
Can has_input be used with the domain GO:0065007 ! biological regulation?
Examples needed
1. has_input
We need an example where the has_input ID is folded to be incorporated into the GO term. Preferably an example other than response to (has_input ID)