Annotation Conf. Call, January 22, 2013: Difference between revisions

From GO Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 5: Line 5:
https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/pombase/wiki/MatrixProject
https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/pombase/wiki/MatrixProject


Talk is here:
Slides:
http://wiki.geneontology.org/index.php/File:Matrix_talk.pdf
http://wiki.geneontology.org/index.php/File:Matrix_talk.pdf



Revision as of 19:48, 22 January 2013

Agenda

Introduction of the PomBase Matrix Project (Val)

https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/pombase/wiki/MatrixProject

Slides: http://wiki.geneontology.org/index.php/File:Matrix_talk.pdf

For groups moving to Protein2GO - consideration of IEP annotations

We want to make a point in the documentation about how IEP annotations will be represented when annotating to UniProt accessions. Does the following sound reasonable to groups?

"UniProt rarely annotates to expression pattern (IEP), but when we do, we ensure that the experiment shows protein expression data, we do not annotate gene expression data. However, UniProt currently does display IEP annotations from other groups mapped to UniProt accessions.

Groups who annotate gene expression data using IEP should understand that they may be making a different statement to what was intended when associating the annotation with a UniProt accession. They may wish to exclude their IEP annotations when supplying their annotations to UniProt for the initial integration into Protein2GO and then append them to the association file UniProt supplies back to them before submitting their annotations to the GO Consortium."

Discussion

  • IEP: Should we make granular evidence code for protein and gene expression?

Donghui's question?

  • Judy: multiple UniProt IDs for various forms of the same protein (human cdk2 example) which results in GOannotations for all these IDs and it skews enrichment and other analysis. Rachael suggested that we bring this up with Claire.