-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 39
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
MF refactoring: edits to DOS's changes #14225
Comments
Hiya, Do you have a link to a pull request with all changes in? Cheers, |
OK Got it. I thought you'd branched again, but it seems to be on the same pull request (#14226), with commits starting from: I'll comment properly later (I was surprised to see 'role' back - as I thought we'd agreed not to use that. MF terms are mini-processes, which are rather different from roles.) CC @cmungall |
I agree the term 'role' will cause confusion
|
"system component function" will be meaningless to biologist. Do these MFs really need a grouping term other than "molecular function"? |
Hi, Perhaps we can do without these new top level classes ? Here's what the top level of MF now looks like. The term with blue background probably could be moved somewhere better. If we can remove some of these highlighted terms, then the top level is small enough that more grouping classes seem unnecessary. Ideas:
Thoughts @thomaspd @ValWood @cmungall @dosumis @ukemi @vanaukenk Thanks, Pascale |
Re: 'toxin activity', please see #12766 which documents this term's recent revival and history. |
Re: 'nutrient reservoir activity' I see this as very similar to 'structural molecule activity' in terms of it being a passive function. |
I agree that we don't need terms above these, at least not for now. Re 1 (transcription factor classes), we'd suggested a higher lever term called transcription regulator activity.' Re 2 (translation factor) I don't think it needs to be obsoleted right away, if at all. Re 3 and 4, I think these are OK for now. About nutrient reservoir, I can't think of a better way to describe egg proteins, or milk proteins. About toxin activity, it's an accepted term for a protein that evolved as a secreted toxin. Let's merge in David's changes now so we don't accrue too many conflicts before making additional changes. |
I still think it is totally confusing for curators and users to need to select terms in 2 MF branches to represent TFs fully, a "transcription factor" branch and a "DNA binding" branch I don't see how the "regulation of transcription branch" differs from a process, and the term names are only subtly different. Even after a few years of using I still need to go back to look at the ontology every time I use one. I do a consistency check every few months to make sure our TFs are still annotated in both branches and there is usually a little drift due to the confusion even for experienced curators. When you look at the high level TF terms do you know which is the "DNA binding" branch and which is the "transcription factor activity" branch? It would be much simpler if we could select a single MF (DNA or protein bindingTF term) This is one of the key terms to describe the MF of a DNA binding TF (DNA binding to a specific promoter region) |
Changes:
|
Just adding a note for posterity, since this term links to this ticket:
We don't have a logical definition for this, so this means terms will have to be manually classified here. It also means we can't auto-infer annotations, if curators want to annotate to an enzyme mechanism that is acting on a protein, then either we need to instantiate protein-specific subclasses for all appropriate activities and train curators to use these subclasses OR train curators to co-annotate. We'd want to do this retrospectively to ensure reasonable annotation completeness. |
Opening a whole new can of worms here three years too late, does it make sense to have top-level terms "acting on DNA / RNA / protein"? It might be better to have "acting on polypeptide / polynucleotide" with the latter having ribo- and deoxyribo- children. That would fit a lot better with the enzymology data focused on the active sites and molecular mechanisms of enzymes and indifferent to the size of the substrate molecule or whether the substrate in genome-encoded or not. This isn't an argument that enzymes don't act on whole proteins, only that such enzymes functionally are specialized children of ones that go for a peptide bond or an amino acid side chain, indifferent to how big the molecule containing it is. @ukemi @hdrabkin |
Randomly, here are some terms which are "acting on a protein" but do not have the parentage in a file that I found on my desktop. holocytochrome-c synthase activity (GO:0004408) deoxyhypusine monooxygenase activity (GO:0019135) peptide-lysine-N-acetyltransferase activity (GO:0061733) lipoyl(octanoyl) transferase activity (GO:0033819) dolichyl-phosphate-mannose-protein mannosyltransferase activity (GO:0004169) ubiquitin-like modifier activating enzyme activity (GO:0008641) |
Reopening because the logical def would fix this? |
I reopened this but it can probablly close? |
Hello,
@thomaspd and I worked on @dosumis 's branch of the MF refactoring and made further edits.
@dosumis would you please have a look, and it that works for you we'll merge this and keep on editing from there.
see
1f9572f
Thanks, Pascale
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: