Difference between revisions of "Manager 17Nov10"

From GO Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Agenda)
Line 15: Line 15:
 
*Rama and Karen had a phone conference call with Michelle and Marcus about ECO. We talked about what should go in the first version, definitions for some codes etc. We should have the next version sometime this week.
 
*Rama and Karen had a phone conference call with Michelle and Marcus about ECO. We talked about what should go in the first version, definitions for some codes etc. We should have the next version sometime this week.
 
*MikeC has implemented the QC checks (hard checks). I am reviewing the annotations that were flagged to make sure the checks are right.
 
*MikeC has implemented the QC checks (hard checks). I am reviewing the annotations that were flagged to make sure the checks are right.
 +
 +
===Reference Genome===
 +
* Ref Genome Gene Targets / WNT Pathway (Kara: unfortunately, I might be late/absent from this call, but please discuss in my absence)
 +
 +
For the Ref Genome gene targets,  we hatched a plan to shift away from the WNT pathway targets to targets that are more lower euk heavy, to enable some of the curators of higher euks to help out with PAINT annotation.  After thinking about this a bit, I wonder if it would make more sense to enlist the lower euk curators for PAINT, so that the primary WNT annotation can continue?  My  concern about our original plan is that we will lose momentum on the WNTs and won't be able to finish that project up.  I do think it would be very beneficial to wrap up at least one of these focused areas for the renewal.  I'm happy to stick to the original plan if others don't think it'll be a problem to go back to the WNTs--but I think from a curation standpoint, it's more efficient to knock out all the WNT genes in consecutive months, on the assumption that curation will go faster when everyone has WNT on the brain.  ;)

Revision as of 12:05, 16 November 2010

Agenda

Progress Reports from managers and annotation groups (Judy)

I have requested Manager reports already.

I would like to request MOD and AnnotationProject progress reports as we did last year. This would be in addition to getting necessary annotation and other data directly from the GOdb on Dec 1. These reports would be static and would be referred to in the formal Progress Report that we submit to NIH. This is important to reference the variety of contributions to GOC from annotation groups.

See: http://wiki.geneontology.org/index.php/Grant_Progress_Reports_December_2009

I know that there was discussion about ‘template’ for MOD reports, and that the annotation data can be effectively derived for reference genome and other purposes directly from the database. I want to make sure we understand the difference between these yearly reports and the GOC generated, on-going, reports that are generated on a regular schedule from GOC resources.

Report from Annotation group

  • Annotation jamboree went well last week. We all annotated from two papers on transcription and went over the annotations.
  • Rama and Karen had a phone conference call with Michelle and Marcus about ECO. We talked about what should go in the first version, definitions for some codes etc. We should have the next version sometime this week.
  • MikeC has implemented the QC checks (hard checks). I am reviewing the annotations that were flagged to make sure the checks are right.

Reference Genome

  • Ref Genome Gene Targets / WNT Pathway (Kara: unfortunately, I might be late/absent from this call, but please discuss in my absence)

For the Ref Genome gene targets, we hatched a plan to shift away from the WNT pathway targets to targets that are more lower euk heavy, to enable some of the curators of higher euks to help out with PAINT annotation. After thinking about this a bit, I wonder if it would make more sense to enlist the lower euk curators for PAINT, so that the primary WNT annotation can continue? My concern about our original plan is that we will lose momentum on the WNTs and won't be able to finish that project up. I do think it would be very beneficial to wrap up at least one of these focused areas for the renewal. I'm happy to stick to the original plan if others don't think it'll be a problem to go back to the WNTs--but I think from a curation standpoint, it's more efficient to knock out all the WNT genes in consecutive months, on the assumption that curation will go faster when everyone has WNT on the brain.  ;)