[go] total genes/gene products annotated versus genome size

[Suzanna Lewis]

Yes, we should follow up on this. It was definitely agreed that  
everyone use the appropriate SO term. Now we have to verify and  
confirm that everyone has made this switch.

Also I agree with Chris that these numbers should be made centrally  
available. This is not the first time that we've had to go hat-in- 
hand to every submitting database and ask for these numbers (e.g.  
when we were writing the last grant). If everyone would consider this  
standard policy to include these counts in the meta-data then this  
wouldn't be a recurring problem.

-S

On Dec 20, 2007, at 5:19 PM, Sue Rhee wrote:

> I agree. Can this be included as a topic for the next GOC meeting  
> if it isn't implemented by then?
> Sue
>
> Chris Mungall wrote:
>>
>> These numbers should be added as metadata in the comments of the  
>> association files (using SO IDs to be unambiguous and eliminate  
>> repetitive discussions about genes vs pc genes vs non-genes like  
>> pseudogenes)
>>
>> On Dec 20, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Sue Rhee wrote:
>>
>>> Hi again,
>>>
>>> Yes, Judy's point is well-taken. I have updated the table to  
>>> reflect only protein-encoding genes. I now have figures for  
>>> arabidopsis, human, cow, and chicken (thank you Emily). If other  
>>> organism DBs could send me their numbers, I would appreciate it  
>>> very much.
>
> -- 
> Sue Rhee
> Staff Scientist
> Carnegie Institution, Department of Plant Biology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305
> Email: (650) 325-1521 x251
> Fax: (650) 325-6857
>
>