[Annotation] phenotype or GO-still struggling

[Tanya Berardini]

Hi Doug,

At TAIR, we make the GO IMP annotation.  Right now, we're not able to make
phenotype annotations using a controlled vocabulary so we don't have the
'duplicated' effort problem yet.  However, even if we were in a situation
like that, I think it is still valid to make the GO annotation for the
reasons that Judy described.

Tanya

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Doug howe <dhowe at cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:

> I'm still struggling with the issue of whether to make a GO annotation
> (processes in particular) or only phenotype annotation.  The zebrafish
> literature is replete with mutant papers that often describe phenotypes
> involving eyes, otic vesicles, or pharyngeal arches, organ development etc.
>   Often, the IEA annotations for a gene seems to indicate that the gene is
> binding DNA, and may be some sort of transcriptional regulator.  Should such
> a gene be annotated with GO terms like 'otic vesicle development', or 'eye
> morphogenesis', or should that be left for phenotype annotations?
>
> --
> Doug Howe, Ph.D.
> ZFIN Scientific Curator
> Zebrafish Nomenclature Coordinator
>
> _______________________________________________
> Annotation mailing list
> Annotation at geneontology.org
> http://fafner.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/annotation
>



-- 
Tanya Berardini
TAIR Curator
www.arabidopsis.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fafner.stanford.edu/pipermail/annotation/attachments/20080707/5ad9f33d/attachment.html>