GO-CAM Working Group Call 2018-07-31: Difference between revisions

From GO Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
(17 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:


=Agenda=
=Agenda=
== Montreal Meeting - October 17- 19 ==
*[http://wiki.geneontology.org/index.php/2018_Montreal_GOC_Meeting_Logistics Montreal Logistics]
== GO Annotation Meetings ==
*Still will be Tuesdays at 8am PDT
*Proposed meeting schedule:
**1st Tuesday: Alliance Gene Function
**2nd Tuesday: GO Consortium
**3rd Tuesday: Alliance Gene Function/GO-CAM Working Group
**4th Tuesday: GO-CAM Working Group
**5th Tuesday: ad hoc, as needed
*One Zoom URL for all - https://stanford.zoom.us/j/976175422


== Re-cap of Last Week's Call ==
== Re-cap of Last Week's Call ==


===  Modeling Transcription in GO-CAM ===
===  Modeling Transcription in GO-CAM ===
*Sabrina - PMID:28687631 'Clock1a affects mesoderm development and primitive hematopoiesis by regulating Nodal-Smad3 signaling in the zebrafish embryo.'
*Sabrina - [http://noctua.berkeleybop.org/editor/graph/gomodel:5a5fc23a00000137 PMID:28687631 'Clock1a affects mesoderm development and primitive hematopoiesis by regulating Nodal-Smad3 signaling in the zebrafish embryo.']


=== Relations between Transcription Factor MFs and Regulation of Transcription BPs ===
=== Relations between Transcription Factor MFs and Regulation of Transcription BPs ===
*Transcription factor activity is 'part_of' regulation of transcription
*Transcription factor activity is 'part_of' regulation of transcription
*This is consistent with the relations in the ontology and produces the correct annotations in the GPAD output file
*This is consistent with the relations in the ontology and produces the correct annotations in the GPAD output file
*A consequence of this is that any regulation terms needed for annotation will have to be instantiated in the ontology


=== General Rule for MFs and Regulation of BPs ===
=== General Rule for MFs and Regulation of BPs ===
Line 20: Line 34:
*Is there a meaningful distinction between these two relations for MF?  What are we really trying to capture with MF inputs?
*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
*Proposal: review MF annotations using has_input
**Relations Ontology working group (broader than just GO) that is also considering this issue
**Relations Ontology working group (broader than just GO) that is also considering [https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/issues/244 how to model participants in an MF] and [https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/issues/171 documentation of has_input and child relations]
=== Relations between BP and input(s) ===
*Right now, no changes to GO-CAM models (will continue to use has_input)
*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 ===
*[https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/ontologies/ro/properties?iri=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.obolibrary.org%2Fobo%2FRO_0002304 causally upstream of, positive effect]
*[https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/ontologies/ro/properties?iri=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.obolibrary.org%2Fobo%2FRO_0002305 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 (others -please add your name to the list if you joined later)
 
== Transcription Models - Decisions Made ==
 
=== Relations between MFs and Regulatory BPs ===
**Transcription factor activities are related to regulation of transcription BP terms using the 'part_of' relation
***This is consistent with the use of relations in the ontology and produces the desired annotations in the GPAD output
**Note that this is a general guideline that will apply to any MF that is 'part_of' a regulatory process
**A consequence of this is that any regulation terms needed for annotation will have to be instantiated in the ontology


=== Capturing Direct Regulation ===
== Direct vs Unknown Mechanism of Regulation ==
*Direct regulation of a TF on the expression of a gene may be captured by adding the gene as input to the TF activity, e.g. has_input 'gene x'
=== Capturing Unknown Mechanism of Regulation ===
=== Capturing Unknown Mechanism of Regulation ===
*If it is not known if the TF directly regulates the expression of a gene, then the input for the TF activity is left blank.
*If it is not known if the TF directly regulates the expression of a gene, then the input for the TF activity is left blank.
Line 57: Line 43:
*The curator can model the unknown mechanism of regulation by saying that the TF is part_of regulation of transcription that is causally_upstream_of_or_within the positive or negative regulation of transcription that ultimately controls the expression of the gene.  The gene is then added as 'has input' to the most distal transcriptional regulatory process.
*The curator can model the unknown mechanism of regulation by saying that the TF is part_of regulation of transcription that is causally_upstream_of_or_within the positive or negative regulation of transcription that ultimately controls the expression of the gene.  The gene is then added as 'has input' to the most distal transcriptional regulatory process.


=== Root Node vs Existing Molecular Functions ===
== 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 BP and MF of transcriptional target ==
*[https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/ontologies/ro/properties?iri=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.obolibrary.org%2Fobo%2FRO_0002304 causally upstream of, positive effect]
*[https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/ontologies/ro/properties?iri=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.obolibrary.org%2Fobo%2FRO_0002305 causally upstream of, negative effect]
 
== Root Node vs Existing Molecular Functions ==
*Curators should always try to construct models using the known MF of a gene product, even if that MF was not specifically demonstrated in the paper they are annotating.
*Curators should always try to construct models using the known MF of a gene product, even if that MF was not specifically demonstrated in the paper they are annotating.
*Associated evidence for that MF will always point back to the paper in which the MF was interrogated.  
*Associated evidence for that MF will always point back to the paper in which the MF was interrogated.  
*Creating models in this way will allow us to build on existing knowledge to create the most comprehensive and up-to-date model for a given BP.
*Creating models in this way will allow us to build on existing knowledge to create the most comprehensive and up-to-date model for a given BP.
*If a gene product has more than one MF, curators should use the biological context of the annotated process to select the most appropriate function(s) for that gene product.
*Proposal: if a gene product has more than one MF, curators should use either: 1) experimental data that supports the selection of one function vs another, 2) the common parent of the two functions, or 3) the biological context of the annotated process to select the most appropriate function(s) for that gene product.
 
**Examples: beta-catenin and PDIA6
== Transcription Models - Decisions Outstanding ==
*has_input vs has_direct_input
*Most, but not all, conventional MF annotations have used 'has_direct_input' for contextual information
*GO-CAM models, and the form editor, however, use has_input
*We need to converge on a consistent way to capture MF context
*Note that the ongoing RO work in which this topic is being discussed may have a significant impact on what we ultimately decide to do here
*In the meantime, what should we do?
*One thing we could do is review MF annotations that used 'has_input' to determine what curators were really trying to capture with 'has_input' for MFs
 
== Screenshot of Model used for Discussion ==
[[File:Sabrina model 2017-07-24.png|800px|thumb|left]]
*The top part of the model shows alternative representations of the relation between the TF and transcription.
*The part_of relation is the agreed upon correct way to model the relationship between the TF and regulation of transcription.
*Note that this model is still under discussion and not the final version; this screenshot represented the model as of 2018-07-24.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


=Minutes=
*On call: Bob, Chris, David, Dustin, Giulia, Harold, Jim, Karen, Kevin M, Kimberly, Laurent-Philippe, Marie-Claire, Pascale, Penelope, Ruth, Sabrina, Seth, Stacia, Suzi A, Suzi L,








[[Category: Annotation Working Group]]
[[Category:GO-CAM]]

Latest revision as of 05:48, 16 April 2019

Meeting URL

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

Agenda

Montreal Meeting - October 17- 19

GO Annotation Meetings

  • Still will be Tuesdays at 8am PDT
  • Proposed meeting schedule:
    • 1st Tuesday: Alliance Gene Function
    • 2nd Tuesday: GO Consortium
    • 3rd Tuesday: Alliance Gene Function/GO-CAM Working Group
    • 4th Tuesday: GO-CAM Working Group
    • 5th Tuesday: ad hoc, as needed
  • One Zoom URL for all - https://stanford.zoom.us/j/976175422

Re-cap of Last Week's Call

Modeling Transcription in GO-CAM

Relations between Transcription Factor MFs and Regulation of Transcription BPs

  • Transcription factor activity is 'part_of' regulation of transcription
  • This is consistent with the relations in the ontology and produces the correct annotations in the GPAD output file
  • A consequence of this is that any regulation terms needed for annotation will have to be instantiated in the ontology

General Rule for MFs and Regulation of BPs

  • 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
  • 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
  • Right now, no changes to GO-CAM models (will continue to use has_input)

Direct vs Unknown Mechanism of Regulation

Capturing Unknown Mechanism of Regulation

  • If it is not known if the TF directly regulates the expression of a gene, then the input for the TF activity is left blank.
    • In this case, however, it is okay to use evidence from another experiment that might have shown different context (i.e. a different gene was regulated) as supporting evidence for the TF activity.
  • The curator can model the unknown mechanism of regulation by saying that the TF is part_of regulation of transcription that is causally_upstream_of_or_within the positive or negative regulation of transcription that ultimately controls the expression of the gene. The gene is then added as 'has input' to the most distal transcriptional regulatory process.

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 BP and MF of transcriptional target

Root Node vs Existing Molecular Functions

  • Curators should always try to construct models using the known MF of a gene product, even if that MF was not specifically demonstrated in the paper they are annotating.
  • Associated evidence for that MF will always point back to the paper in which the MF was interrogated.
  • Creating models in this way will allow us to build on existing knowledge to create the most comprehensive and up-to-date model for a given BP.
  • Proposal: if a gene product has more than one MF, curators should use either: 1) experimental data that supports the selection of one function vs another, 2) the common parent of the two functions, or 3) the biological context of the annotated process to select the most appropriate function(s) for that gene product.
    • Examples: beta-catenin and PDIA6

Minutes

  • On call: Bob, Chris, David, Dustin, Giulia, Harold, Jim, Karen, Kevin M, Kimberly, Laurent-Philippe, Marie-Claire, Pascale, Penelope, Ruth, Sabrina, Seth, Stacia, Suzi A, Suzi L,