two questions from March 19 obol

[J Clark]

>>>  biological_process      GO:0010090      trichome morphogenesis (sensu 
>>>  Magnoliophyta)    is_a    GO:0048468      cell development
>>>
>>
>>This one should be an is_a child of 'cellular morphogenesis 
>>during differentiation'.
> 
> 
> OK, thanks. Is there a quick sound-bite explanation of why not to add the 
> relationship obol suggested?

The generic dag structure in that region looks like this:

  cellular process
[i] cell differentiation
---[p] cell fate commitment
------[p] cell fate specification
------[p] cell fate determination
---[p] cell development
------[i] cellular morphogenesis during differentiation
------[i] cell maturation

http://www.geneontology.org/GO.process.guidelines.shtml#devTerms

Obol is suggesting that you add a term that's basically 
called 'x cellular morphogenesis during differentiation' as 
a child of the generic term 'cell development'. However 
there's really no point doing that since it would mean 
bypassing the correct generic parent 'cellular morphogenesis 
during differentiation' which is already a child of 'cell 
development'.

The slightly confusing thing with this term is that it's 
called 'trichome morphogenesis (sensu Magnoliophyta)' when 
what it actually represents is 'trichome cellular 
morphogenesis during differentiation (sensu Magnoliophyta)' 
(the exact synonym), since it is representing the 
morphogenesis of a single celled trichome. The naming 
happened this way because Sue Rhee felt that it was not 
sensible to have such a long name as the term name, when 
there is currently no need to have the separate term 
'trichome morphogenesis (sensu Magnoliophyta)' that would be 
needed for multicellular trichome.

Does that help?

Jen






-- 
EMBL - European Bioinformatics Institute,
Gene Ontology Consortium,
and Wolfson College, Cambridge.
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/~jclark/