Extension of Protein2GO to non-UniProtKB Identifiers: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
==Overview of representation of complexes in ontology== | ==Overview of representation of complexes in ontology== | ||
* [[capable_of]] relations | * [[capable_of]] relations | ||
==Minutes== | |||
In attendance: Chris, Fiona, Harold, Judy, Kimberly, Paul S., Petra, Rama, Sandra | |||
Unfortunately, people from the UK were not able to call in to the conference line, so we were missing Rachael and Tony. | |||
*Summary of issue: some entities that curators would like to use for GO annotation cannot currently be used with Protein2GO | |||
**Examples: | |||
***Proteins that don't have UniProtKB IDs | |||
***Gene IDs | |||
***ncRNA IDs | |||
***Protein Complex IDs | |||
*There are two parallel issues here wrt curation: | |||
**What entities are needed and how to get them into Protein2GO | |||
**How to consistently represent annotations to other entities (e.g. protein complexes) across the consortium wrt the annotation files (e.g., perhaps a separate GAF for annotations of protein complexes) and wrt how annotations are propagated to protein complex members | |||
*Issue #1 | |||
**It seems that there is agreement on which database IDs would be helpful to start: | |||
**MOD gene IDs | |||
**NCBI RefSeq IDs | |||
**MOD protein IDs | |||
**Protein complex IDs - IntAct, RACE-PRO |
Revision as of 14:28, 9 December 2013
Conference Call Agenda
Google Spreadsheet
What types of entity identifiers might be needed?
- Proteins not in UniProtKB
- ncRNAs
- Examples
- C. elegans gene lin-4 encodes a miRNA that regulates gene expression during larval development - Currently annotations are made to the WB gene ID
- Examples
- Orphan genes
- Examples
- C. elegans gene abc-1 is an uncloned locus defined by a variation that results in defective chromosome segregation - Currently annotations are made to the WB gene ID
- Examples
- Protein complexes
Knowledge Representation
- What kind of biological statements do we want to make?
- Given these statements, what is the appropriate resource for the entity IDs?
- How will this be represented in the GAFs/GPADs?
Practical Considerations
- How many of each type?
- ID stability - if there is churn, can IDs be mapped forward, not go stale?
Overview of representation of complexes in ontology
- capable_of relations
Minutes
In attendance: Chris, Fiona, Harold, Judy, Kimberly, Paul S., Petra, Rama, Sandra
Unfortunately, people from the UK were not able to call in to the conference line, so we were missing Rachael and Tony.
- Summary of issue: some entities that curators would like to use for GO annotation cannot currently be used with Protein2GO
- Examples:
- Proteins that don't have UniProtKB IDs
- Gene IDs
- ncRNA IDs
- Protein Complex IDs
- Examples:
- There are two parallel issues here wrt curation:
- What entities are needed and how to get them into Protein2GO
- How to consistently represent annotations to other entities (e.g. protein complexes) across the consortium wrt the annotation files (e.g., perhaps a separate GAF for annotations of protein complexes) and wrt how annotations are propagated to protein complex members
- Issue #1
- It seems that there is agreement on which database IDs would be helpful to start:
- MOD gene IDs
- NCBI RefSeq IDs
- MOD protein IDs
- Protein complex IDs - IntAct, RACE-PRO