Ontology meeting 2012-08-22: Difference between revisions

From GO Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 45: Line 45:
* We have a mixture at the moment of 'localization TO, localization AT, localization IN'. We should standardize these, so what's the best wording, and what do we mean by it... presumably a protein travelling TO an organelle/cellular location and travelling/being maintained IN that organelle/cellular location once it's there.
* We have a mixture at the moment of 'localization TO, localization AT, localization IN'. We should standardize these, so what's the best wording, and what do we mean by it... presumably a protein travelling TO an organelle/cellular location and travelling/being maintained IN that organelle/cellular location once it's there.
* Definitions are more or less the same.  
* Definitions are more or less the same.  
* Will standardize all term names to "to" rather than "in" or "at" x location.
* Becky will standardize all term names to "to" rather than "in" or "at" x location.


==single-organism process v/s multiorganism process==
==single-organism process v/s multiorganism process==

Revision as of 12:04, 22 August 2012

45-minute meeting

MINUTES: Tanya

ATTENDEES:


SF triage and TG Gatekeeper Rotas

Extended rotas are at:


Asserting implied links/removing redundant links for chemicals

  • For the work with CHEBI we really need to assert all of the links implied by go_xp_chebi.obo. Would also be good to remove the redundant links while we're at it. Can we come up with a plan of action to do this asap?
    • Note that these are added/removed in the release version of GO anyway
      • Option 1 (Xtreme):
        • Ditch Obo-Edit for all editing. Use Protege with Elk, always viewing the inferred hierarchy
      • Option 2:
        • add asserted links and remove redundant links in editors version (not a good long term strategy)
        • possible to do this with OE, but extremely kludgy
        • best option: take Oort output (i.e. go.obo) and copy it back into editors - TO BE DONE BY BECKY
        • may want to do this more than once
        • right now can't tag relationships that are not supported but we want to retain, to distinguish these from unsupported relationships that need to be removed
        • future: can tag relationships - not in OE but under the hood, would need to be filtered

ROLES

  • Carried over from last week's meeting [1]. What's the consensus on having roles in GO?
    • morphogen activity ; GO:0016015 (signaling activity involved in morphogenetic process as the logical definition)
      • should be classified automatically. E.g. activates some signal transduction and part of morphogenesis
      • anyone querying for morphogens in GO right now will get an under-representative set
    • hormone activity
    • protein tag ; GO:0031386
    • holin activity ; GO:0034290
  • If roles are well-characterized and they have a part_of relationship to some process, the term can be created.
  • If mechanism is not known, do not create a function term.

New template for 'protein localization to'

  • Carried over from last week's meeting [2].
  • We have a mixture at the moment of 'localization TO, localization AT, localization IN'. We should standardize these, so what's the best wording, and what do we mean by it... presumably a protein travelling TO an organelle/cellular location and travelling/being maintained IN that organelle/cellular location once it's there.
  • Definitions are more or less the same.
  • Becky will standardize all term names to "to" rather than "in" or "at" x location.

single-organism process v/s multiorganism process

As discussed at the last meeting, we've been overloading the meaning of 'cellular process' to mean both 'a process occurring at the cellular level' and 'a process occurring within a single organism' by putting a disjoint between cellular process and multi-organism process. This causes problems for cellular-level processes that involve more than one organism, as we've found repeatedly with viruses. Becky and I propose the following top-level split:

multi-organism process
---[i] multi-organism cellular process
------[i] interaction between cellular organisms
single-organism process
---[i] cellular process within a single organism 
---[i] process within single multicellular organism
cellular process
---[i] cellular process within a single organism 
---[i] multi-organism cellular process
multicellular organism process
---[i] process within single multicellular organism
---[i] interaction between multicellular organisms

Then the disjoints would be between cellular process/multicellular organism process and multi-organism process/single-organism process. We could probably find better names.


Multi-functional enzymes

For example, terminase has two functions: translocating the nucleic acid into the phage head, and cleaving it at the correct point. These are always coupled.

We get these issues in SF all the time, so we need to come up with a general solution, even if it's not likely to be our final solution.

A related issue is where the same or similar reactions can be carried out by one enzyme v/s multiple enzymes. We've handled this inconsistently in the ontologies - sometimes we have one term for the overall reaction (especially where EC do this e.g. methylthiol:coenzyme M methyltransferase activity ; GO:0044683), sometimes we break it into its constituent parts.