Manager Call 2015-10-21: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*Bluejeans generally worked very well for the calls | *Bluejeans generally worked very well for the calls | ||
==Use of Accessions and Identifiers | ==Use of Accessions and Identifiers== | ||
*Following up on an item from the 2015-10-13 annotation conference call | *Following up on an item from the 2015-10-13 annotation conference call | ||
*Typically, GO curators use UniProtKB accessions, MOD gene IDs, RNACentral IDs, and IntAct or PRO protein complex IDs in Column 2 | *Typically, GO curators use UniProtKB accessions, MOD gene IDs, RNACentral IDs, and IntAct or PRO protein complex IDs in Column 2 |
Revision as of 11:50, 20 October 2015
Agenda
- We used to use Bluejeans, administered by Rama
- Can we continue to use that? If not, what are the other options?
- Bluejeans generally worked very well for the calls
Use of Accessions and Identifiers
- Following up on an item from the 2015-10-13 annotation conference call
- Typically, GO curators use UniProtKB accessions, MOD gene IDs, RNACentral IDs, and IntAct or PRO protein complex IDs in Column 2
- In Annotation Extensions (and also to some extent in the With/From column) curators may be opting to use other IDs to try to indicate a more specific entity, like an mRNA transcript
- GO agreed some time ago that reference protein accessions and gene IDs would effectively be interchangeable and would mean one or more entities associated with that accession or ID
- Are annotation extensions now being treated differently? Do we want that?
- Can we handle isoforms in annotation extensions?
- What is human readable/understandable vs machine readable wrt entity IDs in annotation extensions?
- The ncRNA annotation guidelines that Rachael has put together in a paper should address this issue clearly and that paper is nearly ready to be submitted