[annotation] Question about Isoform Annotation

[Doug howe]

Sounds like a possible IDA function annotation on Subunit B and a 
'contributes_to' function annotation by IGI on subunit C??
-Doug


Kimberly Van Auken wrote:
> Hi--
>
> I'm trying to decide the best way to annotate information about the C. 
> elegans GABA receptor.
>
> In C. elegans, functional GABA receptors are formed from one or more 
> protein subunits encoded
> by the same genomic locus, unc-49.
>
> To test functionality, the authors of the paper expressed subunits 
> separately and then together
> and measured the dose-response to, and response to continuous 
> application of, GABA.   One subunit
> has receptor activity on its own, one does not, and expression of both 
> results in a response distinct
> from that of the first on its own.  To summarize:
>
>    Subunit B:  responds
>
>    Subunit C: doesn't respond
>
>    Subunits B and C: respond with distinct profile
>
>
> If this was just one isoform, I would annotate the protein to the 
> appropriate receptor activity terms
> using the IDA evidence code.  But is there any way to annotate this 
> complexity using IDA?
>
> I can certainly annotate to the B isoform, but I don't want to make 
> the same annotation to the C isoform.
>
> One way I can think to capture the complexity would be to annotate to 
> both B and C, but include the
> other isoform in the WITH column for one B annotation and the only C 
> annotation.
>
> Is the WITH column completely off-limits for IDA annotations?
>
> Any thoughts on this would be much appreciated!
>
> Thanks,
> Kimberly
>
>
>
>