QCQA call 2018-03-20

From GO Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Agenda

GOC NYC May 2018

What do we want to report on? Review Cambridge meeting minutes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y9_Mvqes3op36TPHgfaS7K5FHnGZLgUApghIFYyUKR8/edit

  • HTP report (Helen)
  • HTP/ propagation: do we have guidelines yet?
  • Annotation reviews: update; perspective
  • How GO annotation errors can affect analysis: https://github.com/geneontology/go-annotation/issues/1869
  • Berkeley should provide a report for each organism for a slim to see if there are major (unexpected) changes
  • Priorities for annotation reviews: could be driven by the slim analysis: when numbers seem inconsistent (between IBA+IEAInterPro) AND EXP, especially when the numbers are high
  • Major causes of errors/ inconsistencies/ omissions (see below)
  • Derivative annotations must be flagged/and filtered (done automatically in P2GO - this need to be done at GOC as well)
  • Improve guidelines: again, prioritize which guidelines to update; get each group to review the new guidelines

General overview

How GO annotation errors/ inconsistencies/ ommissions can affect analysis

https://github.com/geneontology/go-annotation/issues/1869

  • Encourage people to think about annotation depth ( e.g. cytoplasmic translation)
  • Slim numbers *should* now be relatively stable now (ontology wise), and only affected by annotation increases and decreases ( I might be able to illustrate how errors affect analyses...)

How errors /inconsistencies/ ommissions are identified

  • Rules
i) Blocking of very general high-level GO terms to increase specificity
https://github.com/geneontology/go-annotation/issues/1659
ii) Taxon constraints (broken?)
iii) Other rules? (Matrix see below)
  • Annotation reviews from ontology development work
examples
identifies:
Specificity in the ontology changed to annotation+ extension
general curator error
  • Matrix and slimming (assessing annotation at the organism level)
https://www.slideshare.net/ValerieWood/copy-of-biocuration-2017
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B0YtE_BqXTzQbkdFZmwzV1M2TjA
identifies:
general curation errors
ontology fixes (true path violations and missing parent)
Incorrect IEA mappings (SPKW and InterPro)
  • other methods

Summarize major causes of errors/ inconsistencies/ omissions

  • a) experimental readout
  • b) annotating a cargo or target to a process
  • c) ignoring author intent
  • d) New biological insights
https://github.com/geneontology/go-annotation/issues/1806
we need a list of blacklisted papers and retractions
  • e) A phenotype not specific for a process

etc

Why we should prioritise error fixing

  • Should be considered critical like fixing bugs in software
  • Small errors can uncover large issues (fix many problems simultaneously across multiple species)
  • Prevents future propagation, via PAINt, Ensembl, InterPro mappings


What next?

  • Removing redundancy? this is related to QC. When the redundancy is removed its easier to spot errors
https://github.com/geneontology/go-site/issues/436
https://github.com/geneontology/go-annotation/issues/1544
https://github.com/geneontology/go-annotation/issues/1674
https://github.com/geneontology/amigo/issues/43
https://github.com/geneontology/amigo/issues/295
https://github.com/geneontology/amigo/issues/440
  • Really need a way to identify unsupported ISS annotation (there is no alerting when the primary annotation is removed)
  • Block terms not suitable for annotation transfer

examples transporter specificity (changes frequently between species) drug related terms response to terms add examples....

  • I would like to propose that we phase out TAS and NAS (not used for future annotations). Should always be an experiment (or an ISO is better than TAS/NAS)

Rules for protein complexes in 'with' column

https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/15421

Progress on annotation reviews

https://github.com/geneontology/go-annotation/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22annotation+review%22


Documentation for annotation reviews

Requesting an annotation review tool?

Review existing pages under Quality Control

http://wiki.geneontology.org/index.php/Category:Quality_Control


Meeting notes

  • Ask PIs/managers: every contributing group should have one member attending annotation call
  • Contributing groups that do not participate must give access to their annotations OR we reserve the right to filter out annotations that do not match our criteria
  • Many RCA annotations come from AgBase and Gramene, who haven't responded to our requests