Annotation Conf. Call 2019-02-12: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
m (→Minutes) |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
*Working meeting held in Berkeley to develop SOP for importing a MOD's worth of GO annotation into Noctua as gene-centric GO-CAMs | *Working meeting held in Berkeley to develop SOP for importing a MOD's worth of GO annotation into Noctua as gene-centric GO-CAMs | ||
*Details on the outcome of this meeting will be presented on next week's GO-CAM call | *Details on the outcome of this meeting will be presented on next week's GO-CAM call | ||
= Minutes = | |||
*On call: Barbara, Chris, David, Dmitry, Dustin, Edith, Giulia, Helen, Harold, Karen, Kevin M, Kimberly, Li, Michele, Midori, Monika, Patrick N, Rob, Sabrina, Shur-Jen, Seth, Stacia, Suzi A, Tanya, Laurent-Philippe, Petra | |||
== GOC Meeting, Cambridge, UK == | |||
*Hotel bloc available thru March 1st, so please reserve now if you need a room | |||
*Meeting is Thursday and Friday, but Saturday could be reserved for working groups, if needed - please think about this! | |||
*Registration fees will likely be <100 pounds and Val will look into coordinating payment through her department (otherwise - cash payment at the meeting) | |||
== GOC Website == | |||
*Please check funding and contributors list for each group | |||
*Report any other issues on the github helpdesk repo | |||
== Ontology Requests - Enzymatic Activities == | |||
*When requesting a new enzymatic activity term, please check the [https://www.rhea-db.org/ Rhea database] for an appropriate xref and include that with your request | |||
*Please also always include a PMID or other accession/identifier for a reference | |||
*You can search Rhea using an EC | |||
*Rhea is very comprehensive and detailed, but if you believe that the enzymatic activity you're looking for is not included, you can request a new entry from Rhea | |||
== Curating Preprints in bioRxiv == | |||
*Good discussion on the pros/cons of curating preprints, especially those found in bioRxiv | |||
*Although most groups would not choose to do this right now, we concluded that if a curator feels strongly that there is valuable information in a bioRxiv preprint, they may curate that paper | |||
*Proposed SOP (to be presented on manager's call for final approval): | |||
**Curator should determine that the preprint is the only published source of the data and that the data is of high quality | |||
**GO annotations can be made as usual, citing the unique accession of the preprint | |||
**If and when the preprint appears as a peer-reviewed publication, the curator needs to review the paper again, perhaps in collaboration with the authors, to make certain that the annotations are still correct | |||
**Existing and/or new annotations from the paper will then be updated to cite the accession for the peer-reviewed paper | |||
== Other Reference Related Topics == | |||
*We discussed how groups handle retracted papers - all annotations associated with retracted papers need to be removed | |||
*Papers where the conclusions may have been over-interpreted or where more recent data has clarified the role or activity of genes - these annotations should be reviewed and removed if no longer accurate | |||
*We still need an effective mechanism for keeping track of papers that should not be (re-)annotated once the data in the paper has been shown to be incorrect | |||
*Could we get a handle on how many papers curated for GO have subsequently been shown to have incorrect information? | |||
**Could we compare older annotation files with new files to see which references have been removed? | |||
Latest revision as of 09:51, 13 February 2019
Meeting URL
- Please see the GO's Google calendar.
- Contact Kimberly if you do not have access.
Agenda
GOC Meeting, Cambridge, UK
- Thursday, April 11th and Friday, April 12th
- 1/2 day shorter than our usual meetings
- Logistics
- Agenda - start Google doc?
New GOC Website
- Congrats to all who worked on getting the new GOC website out to production
- Any additional comments, feedback, questions?
Annotation Pipeline
- Annotation reports on snapshot, current
- Any comments, feedback, questions?
Ontology Requests
- Ontology editors are collaborating with the Rhea database to align GO and Rhea (and Reactome).
- For enzymatic activities, please check for an existing Rhea reaction xref and add to your request.
References for GO Annotations
- Are papers published on bioRxiv acceptable to use as references for GO annotation?
- Discussion on Twitter:
GOC Progress Report
- Reminder about PMC submission for all articles associated with the GOC grant progress report
GOC Hackathon - Berkeley, January 28th - February 1st
- Working meeting held in Berkeley to develop SOP for importing a MOD's worth of GO annotation into Noctua as gene-centric GO-CAMs
- Details on the outcome of this meeting will be presented on next week's GO-CAM call
Minutes
- On call: Barbara, Chris, David, Dmitry, Dustin, Edith, Giulia, Helen, Harold, Karen, Kevin M, Kimberly, Li, Michele, Midori, Monika, Patrick N, Rob, Sabrina, Shur-Jen, Seth, Stacia, Suzi A, Tanya, Laurent-Philippe, Petra
GOC Meeting, Cambridge, UK
- Hotel bloc available thru March 1st, so please reserve now if you need a room
- Meeting is Thursday and Friday, but Saturday could be reserved for working groups, if needed - please think about this!
- Registration fees will likely be <100 pounds and Val will look into coordinating payment through her department (otherwise - cash payment at the meeting)
GOC Website
- Please check funding and contributors list for each group
- Report any other issues on the github helpdesk repo
Ontology Requests - Enzymatic Activities
- When requesting a new enzymatic activity term, please check the Rhea database for an appropriate xref and include that with your request
- Please also always include a PMID or other accession/identifier for a reference
- You can search Rhea using an EC
- Rhea is very comprehensive and detailed, but if you believe that the enzymatic activity you're looking for is not included, you can request a new entry from Rhea
Curating Preprints in bioRxiv
- Good discussion on the pros/cons of curating preprints, especially those found in bioRxiv
- Although most groups would not choose to do this right now, we concluded that if a curator feels strongly that there is valuable information in a bioRxiv preprint, they may curate that paper
- Proposed SOP (to be presented on manager's call for final approval):
- Curator should determine that the preprint is the only published source of the data and that the data is of high quality
- GO annotations can be made as usual, citing the unique accession of the preprint
- If and when the preprint appears as a peer-reviewed publication, the curator needs to review the paper again, perhaps in collaboration with the authors, to make certain that the annotations are still correct
- Existing and/or new annotations from the paper will then be updated to cite the accession for the peer-reviewed paper
Other Reference Related Topics
- We discussed how groups handle retracted papers - all annotations associated with retracted papers need to be removed
- Papers where the conclusions may have been over-interpreted or where more recent data has clarified the role or activity of genes - these annotations should be reviewed and removed if no longer accurate
- We still need an effective mechanism for keeping track of papers that should not be (re-)annotated once the data in the paper has been shown to be incorrect
- Could we get a handle on how many papers curated for GO have subsequently been shown to have incorrect information?
- Could we compare older annotation files with new files to see which references have been removed?