Manager Call 2020-03-11: Difference between revisions

From GO Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 27: Line 27:
* We need to double-check what the behavior is for current annotation tools and output files.
* We need to double-check what the behavior is for current annotation tools and output files.
* Proposal: do *not* include asserted 'acts upstream of' annotations in the GAF; GPAD would be okay because users have access to the expanded set of gp2term relations?
* Proposal: do *not* include asserted 'acts upstream of' annotations in the GAF; GPAD would be okay because users have access to the expanded set of gp2term relations?
* ''Proposal'': do a one-time incremental update to the GAF to include full set of gp2term relations and provide annotation file subsets?
* '''Proposal''': do a one-time incremental update to the GAF to include full set of gp2term relations and provide annotation file subsets?
** There seems to be agreement that this is the most reasonable approach but we need to formulate a specific plan for execution.
** There seems to be agreement that this is the most reasonable approach but we need to formulate a specific plan for execution.



Revision as of 11:15, 11 March 2020

Agenda

  • Agenda: David
  • Minutes: Kimberly
  • Present: Chris, David, Huaiyu, Judy, Kimberly, Laurent-Philippe, Pascale, Seth, Suzi
  • Regrets:

Discussion points

GO meeting Paris

  • Back up plan: remote meeting at same dates ? delay meeting ?
  • When do we need to make the decision by ?
  • PIs will discuss on go-top call today and decide what to do.


Extensions/exports concerns

From Ruth

  • Are we planning to exclude some relations (like 'acts upstream of')? If we don't export then we should not allow to use the relation to annotate
  • What do we plan to do for enrichment for the extension, while we wait for network enrichment tools to be available ? Some current annotations have lost information. For example:
  • miRNA inhibits production of some growth factor
    • With GO-CAM we propose to annotate to 'miRNA involved in -> gene silencing by siRNA -> acts upstream of, negative effect growth factor activity'. But this is missing the 'miRNA (indirectly) involved in negative regulation of growth factor signaling pathway'
  • In a GAF, there is no indication of the 'acts upstream of', or similar, gp2term relations, which can lead to misleading annotations.
  • We need to double-check what the behavior is for current annotation tools and output files.
  • Proposal: do *not* include asserted 'acts upstream of' annotations in the GAF; GPAD would be okay because users have access to the expanded set of gp2term relations?
  • Proposal: do a one-time incremental update to the GAF to include full set of gp2term relations and provide annotation file subsets?
    • There seems to be agreement that this is the most reasonable approach but we need to formulate a specific plan for execution.



===Proposed data flow from Alex (GOA)


1. All annotation sources/files are pulled to GO based on yaml files. (already implemented) 2. GOA pull them from GO based on yaml files data (partially implemented) 3. GOA perform all, so far known, sanity checks and constrains (already implemented) 4. GOA sends out reports to go-quality and group responsible for annotations (partially implemented) 5. GOA generate gpa/gpi (maybe gaf if you ask nicely) for 142 taxon for all annotations which are passed though step 3 (to be implemented) 6. GO using 142 taxon file for all their pipelines needs, no need to run their own set of checks, can be indexed directly to amigo and other tools. (to be implemented)


Paper identifying missing 'is_a' relations

David https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa106/5739437

Some missing relations are not: is it a version problem ? or maybe they aren't using the inferred version of the ontology ?

Is there any missing link that could be useful for the ontology ?

Non-GO editors people making PR in the ontology tracker

https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/17091


Isn't our policy that *only* GO editors work on the ontology ? Or do we want to allow some other users to make PRs?

Pathway Genome Databases and the Alliance

See Chris' email