GO-CAM Working Group Call 2018-07-24

Meeting URL

https://stanford.zoom.us/j/976175422

Agenda

Noctua

• Landing Page (under development)
  • Browsing GO-CAMs
  • User and Group Pages
  • Curators should look around the landing page, provide feedback
    • Can now search using a PMID
    • Green paper icons beneath model titles; mouse over shows paper data
    • One question about presentation of author name(s) - first? last?
• https://github.com/geneontology/web-gocam/issues

Documentation

• Noctua tool
  • Updates:

Modeling Transcription in GO-CAM

• Sabrina - PMID:28687631 'Clock1a affects mesoderm development and primitive hematopoiesis by regulating Nodal-Smad3 signaling in the zebrafish embryo.'
• Kimberly - PMID: 28578929 'Morphological Diversity of C. elegans Sensory Cilia Instructed by the Differential Expression of an Immunoglobulin Domain Protein.'
• Kimberly - unc-86 regulates transcription of mec-3

Relations between MF and BP

• Transcription factor activity is 'part_of' regulation of transcription
• This is consistent with the ontology
  • RNA polymerase II transcription factor activity, sequence-specific DNA binding

Relations between MF and BP (from previous call)

• We discussed models of transcription factors and their relation to transcription BP terms
• Transcription factor activities are modeled as 'part of' a regulation of transcription process
  • Why? In the ontology, regulation is modeled is a biological process, and so functions need to be part of biological processes that regulate other processes.
  • This can be captured succinctly in models by stating that a transcription factor activity is part_of '(+/-) regulation of transcription'.
  • This will also produce the correct annotations in the GPAD output file.
  • If a transcription factor activity is connected to the process of transcription with a regulates relation, the reasoner cannot then use the logical definitions of the process terms to infer that the transcription factor activity is 'part_of' a regulatory process.
• Transcription factor activities are 'part of' transcriptional regulation

Figure 1. Transcription Factor Relation to BP

• Regulation of transcription is logically defined as a biological_process and (regulates some 'transcription by RNA polymerase II')

Figure 2. Equivalence axiom for regulation of transcription - Protege

• Positive regulation of transcription is logically defined as a biological_process and ('positively regulates' some 'transcription by RNA polymerase II')

Figure 3. Equivalence axiom for positive regulation of transcription - Protege

• Negative regulation of transcription is logically defined as a biological_process and ('negatively regulates' some 'transcription by RNA polymerase II')

Figure 4. Equivalence axiom for negative regulation of transcription - Protege

General Rule

• MFs and BPs are linked by part_of (or other relations, e.g. acts upstream of, acts upstream of or within) but NOT by regulates relations

Relations between MF and Input(s)

• has_input vs has_direct_input
• Improve documentation on 'has input' and subproperties, deprecating unnecessary terms
• obsolete 'has direct input' ?
• has_direct_input has been used much more widely in conventional annotation for MF extensions
• has_input has been used less widely, but how is it used?
  • select participants in catalytic activities
  • metal ions (e.g. calcium-dependent protein binding)
  • drug binding
• Is there a meaningful distinction between these two relations for MF? What are we really trying to capture with MF inputs?
• Proposal: review MF annotations using has_input
  • This would be good information to have in light of the Relations Ontology work that is currently being done

Relations between BP and input(s)

• Duplicating has_input for MF and BP results in multiple entries in the AE field of the BP annotation in the GPAD

Relations between MF and Inputs (from previous call)

• We discussed the relation to use when capturing the input of the transcription factor.
• Even in conventional annotations, groups have differed on how they do this.
  • To illustrate, groups have used: has_input, has_direct_input, has_regulation_target
• For MFs, is there any real difference in meaning between has_input and has_direct_input?
  • No, an input to an MF is, by necessity, a direct input to the activity.
• For BP, the use of has_input may mean something different, though.
  • For BP, curators have used has_input to indicate the entity that is affected by a process but for which the precise MF that directly mediates that effect is not known.
  • As an example, Rob described how SGD has annotated IDA vs IMP for protein kinase activity and phosphorylation.
• The curation task of indicating inputs for MFs vs BPs needs to be clear for GO-CAM models.
• Rob was asked to create a GO-CAM model for the phosphorylation example.
• Sabrina's paper from last month also touches on this; in one case, the evidence for direct regulation of transcription was supported by several different pieces of evidence, whereas in the other cases, there wasn't sufficient evidence to assert the direct regulation. We need to re-visit this model to make sure we have a satisfactory way of distinguishing between these two cases. This will likely be a common occurrence during curation of transcription papers.

Relations between BP and MF of transcriptional target

• causally upstream of, positive effect
• causally upstream of, negative effect

Minutes

• On call: Bob, Dave F, David H, Dmitry, Edith, Giulia, Harold, Kimberly, Laurent-Philippe, Pascale, Paul T, Petra, Sabrina, Seth, Stan, Suzi A, Suzi L