Talk:2010 Bar Harbor Agenda: Difference between revisions

From GO Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 146: Line 146:
* Publicity- Publicize it and put it at a confidence level next to the manual annotations. Does the end user need to know this came out of the ref.genome/Paint project? The user needs to know the function of the gp.  
* Publicity- Publicize it and put it at a confidence level next to the manual annotations. Does the end user need to know this came out of the ref.genome/Paint project? The user needs to know the function of the gp.  


* Judy- there was lot of concern about MikeL spending lot of time in inferring via PAINT. But looks like MikeL has figured out a pipeline and things are faster now. This is a tremendous advance since Geneva camp. <br>Li- sometimes the annotations have to go just one level down. This might not be high priority for the MODS. is it valuable to go one level down. Make recommendations only if annotating one level down is important for the tree annotation. <br>Suzi- these annotations shd be sent out irrespective. Put some priority on the suggestions- Critical/Non-critical.
* Judy- there was lot of concern about MikeL spending lot of time in inferring via PAINT. But looks like MikeL has figured out a pipeline and things are faster now. This is a tremendous advance since Geneva camp. <br>Li- sometimes the annotations have to go just one level down. This might not be high priority for the MODS. is it valuable to go one level down. Make recommendations only if annotating one level down is important for the tree annotation. <br>Suzi- these annotations shd be sent out irrespective. Put some priority on the suggestions- Critical/Non-critical. MikeL has already been doing this judgment in some ways.
 
<br>Harold- do you disregard IMP for process?
<br>MikeL- it depends. I judge depending on what is available.

Revision as of 16:36, 7 September 2010

Minutes

-Mindy Dwinell from RGD- taking over Simon's position
-Sven's first GO meeting

Grant Aims (Suzi)

  • Aim 1:
    • building the ontology- regulates relationship, is_a, connecting to external ontologies (CheBi, Cell ontology)
    • ref. genome- lot of progress
    • general annotation, MODS, WGs coming together, coming up with standards- good progress.

So to some extent our aims will remain the same.

    • How can we get detailed/rich annotations
    • Quality control group
    • rate limiting step- literature curation. Improve on item e. Richness is vague. Elaborate on that item.
  • Aim 2: Ref.genome
    • improve software
  • Aim 3:
  • 2b-Infrastructure to approach these bacterial folks to make annotations. Do we have better relation with JGI now? Suzi- Yes. She has been invited to give a talk. Jonathan Eisen is involved.
  • How to find out who is doing what- lot of c.elegans-pathogens papers. Where do you send the pathogen information? No infrastructure for that. It is not that we are having difficulty identifying genes to annotate.
  • All these items available on the wiki. Please use the tracker and add your thoughts.
  • We want to build the ontology automatically. CheBI is not requesting terms from us. It is the use of other ontologies to build GO.
  • How are we doing? Metrics? are we meeting our goals? If we can provide some sense of completeness, breadth of annotation etc. Scientist who use the GO should provide metrics on how GO worked for us. Some papers say GO is great, some papers use other resources and so on. * Just because the paper used KEGG, doesn't mean they did not like GO. They probably did not get the results they wanted with KEGG. If people are finding GO to be complex, we shd provide cuts of GO (GO-slims). 2 kinds of consumers (MODs and groups like Reactome and then consumers who stay at a distance and plug in their data into GO). Many people who go away are because they don't find the data in GO (not annotated). Karens comment- user said 'i can't remember if the term is in the MF or BP'.
  • Mary-metrics with 'us'. How do we use it (Mods), metrics on how many papers have been curated by the MODs, these metrics are important as well.
  • How about we pair up with a specific group (say cancer biologist). Do analysis with them (now and after 3 months)
  • if we got more mappings to ext. databases, then users don't have to learn a new system. they could say use just metacyc
  • Talk about IEA mappings (parking lot discussion)
  • leverage existing tools (PAINT and PANTHR families) and what we have in GO and do a first pass. Get broad coverage. Depth coverage is costly.
  • so many GO annotations, hard to say which is the main function etc.
  • identify areas that are underannotated based on which parts of the ontology is well developed and curators work on those areas.
  • NOTCH signaling pathway IEA- from Kmberly. Lot of organismal annotations, but not a single one talks about Notch signaling
  • Tanya- Idea on % of effort for each item.
  • One of the ideas - ask the program officer if we get funding from 2 different agencies.
  • Going through list of Tasks from the Cambridge meeting (the long table).
    • talk about Gold standard set so that we can compare annotations
    • did not do a usability study
    • HOMEWORK-everybody should write specific aims for this project. Download the Word document, turn on "track changes", add your comments, and email back to the GO-tops.

Annotation Advocacy Group Report

Minutes

-Mindy Dwinell from RGD- taking over Simon's position
-Sven's first GO meeting

Grant Aims (Suzi)

  • Aim 1:
    • building the ontology- regulates relationship, is_a, connecting to external ontologies (CheBi, Cell ontology)
    • ref. genome- lot of progress
    • general annotation, MODS, WGs coming together, coming up with standards- good progress.

So to some extent our aims will remain the same.

    • How can we get detailed/rich annotations
    • Quality control group
    • rate limiting step- literature curation. Improve on item e. Richness is vague. Elaborate on that item.
  • Aim 2: Ref.genome
    • improve software
  • Aim 3:
  • 2b-Infrastructure to approach these bacterial folks to make annotations. Do we have better relation with JGI now? Suzi- Yes. She has been invited to give a talk. Jonathan Eisen is involved.
  • How to find out who is doing what- lot of c.elegans-pathogens papers. Where do you send the pathogen information? No infrastructure for that. It is not that we are having difficulty identifying genes to annotate.
  • All these items available on the wiki. Please use the tracker and add your thoughts.
  • We want to build the ontology automatically. CheBI is not requesting terms from us. It is the use of other ontologies to build GO.
  • How are we doing? Metrics? are we meeting our goals? If we can provide some sense of completeness, breadth of annotation etc. Scientist who use the GO should provide metrics on how GO worked for us. Some papers say GO is great, some papers use other resources and so on. * Just because the paper used KEGG, doesn't mean they did not like GO. They probably did not get the results they wanted with KEGG. If people are finding GO to be complex, we shd provide cuts of GO (GO-slims). 2 kinds of consumers (MODs and groups like Reactome and then consumers who stay at a distance and plug in their data into GO). Many people who go away are because they don't find the data in GO (not annotated). Karens comment- user said 'i can't remember if the term is in the MF or BP'.
  • Mary-metrics with 'us'. How do we use it (Mods), metrics on how many papers have been curated by the MODs, these metrics are important as well.
  • How about we pair up with a specific group (say cancer biologist). Do analysis with them (now and after 3 months)
  • if we got more mappings to ext. databases, then users don't have to learn a new system. they could say use just metacyc
  • Talk about IEA mappings (parking lot discussion)
  • leverage existing tools (PAINT and PANTHR families) and what we have in GO and do a first pass. Get broad coverage. Depth coverage is costly.
  • so many GO annotations, hard to say which is the main function etc.
  • identify areas that are underannotated based on which parts of the ontology is well developed and curators work on those areas.
  • NOTCH signaling pathway IEA- from Kmberly. Lot of organismal annotations, but not a single one talks about Notch signaling
  • Tanya- Idea on % of effort for each item.
  • One of the ideas - ask the program officer if we get funding from 2 different agencies.
  • Going through list of Tasks from the Cambridge meeting (the long table).
    • talk about Gold standard set so that we can compare annotations
    • did not do a usability study
    • HOMEWORK-everybody should write specific aims for this project. Download the Word document, turn on "track changes", add your comments, and email back to the GO-tops.

Annotation Advocacy Group Report

Ruth gave report on binding working group.

  • Discussion on cross-species expression. Should reciprocal annotations be made for these? Discussion on how to annotate these, what should be in column 8 versus 16.
  • Discussion of whether reciprocal annotations are mandatory, even within the same species, e.g. calmodulin and myosin.
    • ** should GO still be making protein binding annotations - David brought up idea that "protein binding" is isolated within GO, and cannot be linked to specific processes. Kara brought up idea that maybe protein-protein interactions should be left to some other database (IMEX, BioGrid, etc) rather than directly manually annotated by GO curators. There was debate about whether GO should automatically make "protein binding" annotations (either to that term directly or to children) or just leave them separate to be incorporated via a separate resource for enrichment analysis. This remains a topic of discussion.

Rama gave report on SGD's analysis of IPI for catalytic activity terms.

    • ** chains of evidence - Peter gave a hypothetical example and Karen a real example. It came down to the fact that often the conclusion the researchers make, which the annotation is trying to represent, is not based on any single piece of evidence, but a combination of multiple lines of evidence.

Rachael's report -

Pascale's report - downstream effects

Kimberly's report - regulation vs the process itself

  • Question about whether you can distinguish between whether a curator judged that a gp was part of the process, or whether they couldn't tell whether it was part of the process or just regulated it.
  • Caution should be applied when annotating to regulating terms (Judy's comment that annotators need to be skilled and highly trained biologists)
  • David suggested that when a curator comes across a case where they know that a function also regulates a process, that they should request an ontology change to capture that.
  • A ligand in a signalling pathway should not be annotated to regulation.

Rama - summarizing some maintenance details

  • consolidation of mailing lists
  • preview of changes to GO website (separation of documentation for manual vs IEA annotation)
  • QC checks (hard means automatically removed)
    • InterPro is considering teh proposed removal of annotations to "protein binding" (proposed for Hard QC)
  • plans
    • QC's
      • Hard QC's will be run every week as part of regular filtering script
      • Questions:
        • What is plan on soft QC's?
        • Could we keep some stats on these (good for grant to have this documentation)
    • new evidence system that allows composite lines of evidence, chains, etc.

Rachael demo on new [www.ebi.ac.uk/QuickGO QuickGO interface]. Please give it try, just went live and they'd love feedback on it.

Rama's initial thoughts for grant renewal

  • idea that users could submit suggestions for papers to be annotated; Rachael mentioned that GOA is working on having a form where researchers can submit annotations via a web interface.

Ref.genome Project (Pascale)

  • 12 families are in the CVS repository, 48 species
  • Wnt signaling- there was data for worm, fly and mouse genes that were not in some sub-families
  • 2 week thing is little tricky; Susan- if I have one dedicated person doing ref.genome curation, i could make faster progress.
  • Pascale- can you get to data from a review? Sometimes papers say mammals and don't mention the species.
  • lot of details get discussed. But very hard to find it. Can we put these details in GONuts?
  • Where to post comments- Wiki or SF? Monitoring?
  • Tanya-After MikeL sends an email out, for a given family, I go to the Wiki, how do i easily identify what are the genes and annotations? When? Both at the beginning and after the inferences are made. For example, if you have 4 genes in the family, then you want to see the annotations for all the 4 or have check boxes to select the genes, in one click, to see annotations . Sven's family view just lists the genes. Add link to say 'Has Exp annotations/ # of EXP'.

Such feature requests, please add them to the PAINT SF tracker.

  • rather than picking gene families, pick couple of papers to discuss for electronic jamborees- part of the Annotation monthly conference call.
  • alternate site for PAINT files- directly available from GOC website- geneontology.org/go/gene_association/submission
  • do we reuse these Homolset pages for Panther families? OR do we need a different visualization? Panther families are already available - need to discuss
  • no way to download the Ref.genome annotations. QuickGO has a filter for these genes.
    Pascale- these are random set of genes- why create a filter? what do you want to do with it?


Rachael- publicity?
Judy- comprehensiveness of the annotations across species. We have put these genes through the inferencing pipeline. look at it at the genome level.

  • Publicity- Publicize it and put it at a confidence level next to the manual annotations. Does the end user need to know this came out of the ref.genome/Paint project? The user needs to know the function of the gp.
  • Judy- there was lot of concern about MikeL spending lot of time in inferring via PAINT. But looks like MikeL has figured out a pipeline and things are faster now. This is a tremendous advance since Geneva camp.
    Li- sometimes the annotations have to go just one level down. This might not be high priority for the MODS. is it valuable to go one level down. Make recommendations only if annotating one level down is important for the tree annotation.
    Suzi- these annotations shd be sent out irrespective. Put some priority on the suggestions- Critical/Non-critical. MikeL has already been doing this judgment in some ways.


Harold- do you disregard IMP for process?
MikeL- it depends. I judge depending on what is available.