Ontology meeting 2016-01-21
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 (the same one with the negative by negative terms)
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
How about: DNA methylation is_a regulates gene expression? DNA methylation part_of regulation of gene expression, epigenetic Disentangle 'regulation of gene expression, epigenetic' into its parts. DNA methylation vs. DNA demethylation and their relationships to regulation of gene expression, epigenetic. DOS: Looking at definition of 'reg of gene expression', the definition is consistent with the current placement of DNA methylation. For now, go with part_of. 'DNA de/methylation' part_of 'regulation of gene expression, epigenetic' DH: Discomfort with regulates o part_of. Imagines that this will be disastrous in LEGO models. Consult with Val? Use 'causally upstream of' as a solution? More general than 'regulates' and won't have grouping. DH: another example, restriction enzyme system in bacteria, methylation causes inability for REs to cut - DNA methylation is not always linked to 'regulation of gene expression, epigenetic' - Kills the part_of solution as this is not always true. PMID:
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
AI: Everyone else look through report for odd references.
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.
AI: DOS will check with Val whether she's comfortable with 'occurs in' some cell.
movement, transport, establishment of localization
See this document that DOS put together: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mLuIbLGo9MApOVBeELzqaalKDcLG0xZthWnporGVkCg/edit?usp=sharing
also:
https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/9189 which brings up issues with 'establishment of localization' and 'transport'
DOS' work in this area should clear up that issue as well.