Ontology meeting 2016-01-21
Attendees:
Minutes: Tanya
Fun with regulates axioms
https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/12235
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