Ontology meeting 2016-01-21

From GO Wiki
Revision as of 11:23, 21 January 2016 by David os (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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