Group members: Pascale, Raymond, Val, Edith, Steven, Tanya, Li, Kimberly, Peter, Chris, Paul
Present:
Regrets:

Discussion points

tRNA modifications
- coming from ticket: Mitochondrial 5-taurinomethyluridine-[tRNA synthase]
- Questions:
  1. Unless this provides information to distinguish 2 reactions or pathways, should the CC be included in MF and BP terms?
  2. What is the level of granularity we want for BPs in the tRNA modification branch, given that we have very precise MFs? A radical proposal would be just to use 'tRNA modification' (or maturation?). Unless these modifications dependent, sequential, and represent specific pathways? It seems the combinatorial would be unmanageable: tRNAs bears 100's of modifications, see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10275265/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31102979/)
  3. Some terms are more specific than the rest of the branch, for example: [mitochondrial tRNA wobble position uridine thiolation](http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/GO_1990799): The process in which a uridine residue at position 34 in the anticodon of a mitochondrial tRNA is post-transcriptionally thiolated at the C2 position. This process involves transfer of a sulfur from cysteine to position C2 by several steps.
  - Do we want to describe individual modifications as BPs? They seem to be functions rather than BPs.

amino acid metabolic process grouping terms
- Any new thoughts? How can be tackle this?

Pyruvate metabolic process - do not annotate
- See https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/29541
- Discuss Peter's objections
- in which case would we need 'x metabolic process'? it seems if we cannot tell whether the reaction is synthetic or catabolic, we dont know which process we are looking at. 'Metabolic' process has been overly used to just say 'a reaction involving chemical x'

Ontology meeting 2025-01-27