-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
pombe differences to GO database #2196
Comments
These are fine. They have a process annotation, they are not captured by our slim, but they are captured by the less restrictive slim we are using for the paper Systematic ID Name Product description |
annotated at GO, not in POmBAse Systematic ID Name |
696-660 diff prt2 SPBC8E4.02c pho84 repressing sense RNA Prt2 |
check these, annotated by PAINT, but not by us IMPLICATED I did not think the evidence was strong enough to annotate these SPCC306.06c big1 ER membrane protein, BIG1 family, implicated in protein glycosylation (predicted) REPORTED
Difficult ones TELOMERIC truncations HIGH LEVEL ANNOTATION, OR FUNCTION IN PROESS, EXCLUDED FROM SLIM
ANNOTATABLE
SPCC4G3.17 hdd1 HD domain protein phosphoric ester hydrolase family (predicted) SPBP35G2.14 puf2 pumilio family RNA-binding protein Puf2 |
All done |
GO term mapper reports:
These 660 identifiers had no non-root annotations:
which is quite different from us:
https://www.pombase.org/gene_subset/non_go_slim_without_bp_annotation
but this is likely to be due to
i) PAINT annotations, and
ii) relaxed slimnot the reason. I'm using the PomBAse slimSince we use the same PAINT inferences for other species I'll go with it but need to look into this
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: