Ontology meeting 2016-01-21: Difference between revisions

From GO Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Attendees:
Attendees: DavidH, DavidOS, Harold, Heiko, Melanie, Paola, Tanya


Minutes: Tanya
Minutes: Tanya
Line 7: Line 7:


https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/12235
https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/12235
  400 some new inferences after Chris added some regulates axioms before the holiday break. After fixing what was causing the
  build to break, we can now examine them. The problem described in
  [[GH12235|https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/12235]] was one result that was troubling.  See this ticket. 
  Basic pattern is 'negative regulation of xx by negative regulation of yy'.
  DavidH/KMV are annotating in LEGO but GAFs produced are not being consumed. Heiko working on tweaking GAF DOS suggests 
  making LEGO diagrams for the annotations using each of the xx outstanding terms (see GH ticket) to clarify.  Inference
  from the GAF would give multiple relevant parent classes. Remove those terms.  It is possible to roll a whole pathway
  into a term like this but it doesn't really make sense to do that.  In the meantime, assert two is_a parents, both negative,
  delete the equivalent class expression and work out what assertions to add directly.  In cases w/o anntotaions, just send
  out obsoletion notice.
  GAF from LEGO status:  Most primitive thing is there.  Sometimes we want more than just the basic inference.  The whole part
  where we go to deeper terms, use inferencing features, is taking longer.  What do we state in the model and what do we infer?
  Needs discussion. Something stable is needed by the end of the month will be out for KMW to consume.  Less than 2 weeks to the
  basic version.


== DNA methylation and gene expression ==
== DNA methylation and gene expression ==

Revision as of 12:49, 21 January 2016

Attendees: DavidH, DavidOS, Harold, Heiko, Melanie, Paola, Tanya

Minutes: Tanya


Fun with regulates axioms

https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/12235

 400 some new inferences after Chris added some regulates axioms before the holiday break. After fixing what was causing the
 build to break, we can now examine them. The problem described in 
 https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/12235 was one result that was troubling.  See this ticket.  
 Basic pattern is 'negative regulation of xx by negative regulation of yy'.
 DavidH/KMV are annotating in LEGO but GAFs produced are not being consumed. Heiko working on tweaking GAF DOS suggests   
 making LEGO diagrams for the annotations using each of the xx outstanding terms (see GH ticket) to clarify.  Inference 
 from the GAF would give multiple relevant parent classes. Remove those terms.  It is possible to roll a whole pathway 
 into a term like this but it doesn't really make sense to do that.  In the meantime, assert two is_a parents, both negative,
 delete the equivalent class expression and work out what assertions to add directly.  In cases w/o anntotaions, just send 
 out obsoletion notice.
 GAF from LEGO status:  Most primitive thing is there.  Sometimes we want more than just the basic inference.  The whole part
 where we go to deeper terms, use inferencing features, is taking longer.  What do we state in the model and what do we infer?
 Needs discussion. Something stable is needed by the end of the month will be out for KMW to consume.  Less than 2 weeks to the
 basic version.

DNA methylation and gene expression

Stemming from latest assert report

ADD GO:1901535 'regulation of DNA demethylation' GO:0010468 'regulation of gene expression'

because 'DNA demethylation' (and 'DNA methylation') is_a 'regulation of gene expression, epigenetic'. Should it be part_of instead?

 DOS: I have a mini project going on this topic.  From discussion with Ruth and Karen, we agreed that a regulates relation should apply between 'chromatin modification' and 'epigenetic regulation of gene expression'
 Long confusing umbrella ticket here:  https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/11628

Latest assertions

The list in yesterday's assert report (email "[go-ontology] build-go-assert-inferences - Build # 173 - Fixed!") is really long, 402 added axioms presumably as a result of the synapse branch merge. Has anyone had a chance to review them all?


 DOS: Inferences from synapse branch merge reviewed.
 Many inferences also come from the change to regulation axiomatisation.
 I have reviewed these briefly.  Some problematic ones are flagged in
 https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/12235

Logical definitions for 'response to chemical' terms

Logical defs for 'response to chemical' terms point to 'response to stimulus', while 'cellular response to chemical' points to 'cellular response to chemical stimulus':

id: GO:1903842

name: response to arsenite ion

intersection_of: GO:0050896 ! response to stimulus

intersection_of: has_input CHEBI:22633 ! arsenite ion

relationship: has_input CHEBI:22633 {is_inferred="true"} ! arsenite ion

but

id: GO:1903843

name: cellular response to arsenite ion

intersection_of: GO:0070887 ! cellular response to chemical stimulus

intersection_of: has_input CHEBI:22633 ! arsenite ion

relationship: has_input CHEBI:22633 {is_inferred="true"} ! arsenite ion

Was this intentional - shouldn't the former point more specifically to 'response to chemical'? (which is_a 'response to stimulus') Of course, the 'response to chemical' parentage is inferred anyway.

DOS RESPONSE: [note - DH suggested the same]

Non-redundant classification is correct:

This equivalence axioms takes care of the correct classification of 'response to arsenite ion' under 'response to chemical':

  • 'response to chemical' EquivalentTo 'response to stimulus' and ('has input' some 'chemical entity')

We don't yet have axiomatisation to deal with the 'cellular bit' - hence the more specific genus in this case. But if we agree that all cellular response occurs in some cell we could have:

  • 'cellular response to stimulus' EquivalentTo: 'response to stimulus' and occurs in some cell
  • 'cellular response to chemical stimulus' EquivalentTo: 'response to stimulus' and occurs in some cell and has_input some 'chemical entity'
  • 'cellular response to arsenite ion' EquivalentTo: 'response to stimulus' and occurs in some cell and has_input some 'arsenite ion'

The reasoner would then look after classification completely.

movement, transport, establishment of localization

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mLuIbLGo9MApOVBeELzqaalKDcLG0xZthWnporGVkCg/edit?usp=sharing