[Annotation] ligands, receptors, and signaling pathways

[David Hill]

I have always annotated both ligands and the receptors to the specific 
signaling pathways.

David

Valerie Wood wrote:
>
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> I have annotated receptors  to signal transduction (or one of its 
> children) but not to the signaling pathway itself. I'd also like to 
> know if this is correct.
> I seem to remember that this was a previous consensus, but I find it 
> documented anywhere.
>
> Val
>
>
>
> Jennifer Deegan (nee Clark) wrote:
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> I'm starting to overhaul the signaling terms just now. I'll make a 
>> note of this for when I get down that far.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jen
>>
>> Doug howe wrote:
>>
>>> Is it correct to annotate receptors with signaling pathway terms?  
>>> For example if a BMP receptor mutant is shown to have reduced bmp 
>>> signaling, should the receptor gene be annotated with the term 'BMP 
>>> signaling pathway', or are receptors themselves not part of the 
>>> pathway?  Ditto for ligands.
>>>
>>> The current def of 'BMP signaling pathway' is: A series of molecular 
>>> signals generated as a consequence of any member of the BMP (bone 
>>> morphogenetic protein) family binding to a cell surface receptor."
>>>
>>> This def makes it seem like the signaling pathway initiates with 
>>> things downstream of (and excluding) the receptor itself?
>>>
>>> Whatever the policy is on this, it might be a useful curatorial note 
>>> to include on such terms so curators can see the info right in term 
>>> browsers.
>>>
>>
>
>