-
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
Change logical definitons for children of 'signaling receptor activity' #26217
Comments
Options:
'BMP receptor activity' |
My observations are: 1) there aren't too many impacted terms, and 2) not all of the terms listed above would be addressed by the proposed solution (e.g. 'transmembrane receptor protein kinase activity'). Logical definitions based on PRO or some other way to group proteins into classes seems overly complicated for handling this number of terms, which we could handle, at least for the time being, by just asserting them to be children of signaling receptor activity (which is probably already the case, so job done :) ). As an added consideration, I'm concerned that having a new relation, which would be equivalent to a property chain that involves a directly_regulates relation, could potentially lead to incorrect inferences, since GO-CAM uses those in many contexts, not just for receptor ligands. |
These use 'has input', which is wrong WRT GO-CAM modeling guidelines.
We need to use either 'has small molecule activator activity' for small molecules, such that the logical definition would be:
signaling receptor activity
and 'has small molecule activator' some chemical enttiy
However for protein-activated receptors, such as insulin receptor, I dont know which RO relation we can use (or maybe we need to create one?)
from OLS:
@cmungall @thomaspd @ukemi @vanaukenk Any suggestions?
Thanks, Pascale
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: