[Go] MT attachment to chromosome

[Chisholm, Rex FSM]

Chromosome is one of those terms that is imprecisely used--sometimes
meaning the DNA and other times the DNA and its associated proteins.
The kinetochore consists of some of those associated proteins. I think
most biologists would see the kinetochore as part of a mitotic
chromosome.  It is certainly not part of the interphase chromosome.  I
think this placement would make sense to most cell biologists.

Rex

-----Original Message-----
From: go-bounces at genome.stanford.edu
[mailto:go-bounces at genome.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Valerie Wood
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:14 AM
To: Midori Harris
Cc: GO Mailing List; Yeast Curator (SGD)
Subject: Re: [Go] MT attachment to chromosome


Currently a placement of kinetochore under chromosome would be correct
based on how condensed nuclear centromeric region is defined

def
condensed nuclear chromosome, centromeric region The region of a
condensed chromosome in the nucleus that includes the centromere and
associated proteins, including the kinetochore. In monocentric
chromosomes, this region corresponds to a single area of the chromosome,
whereas in holocentric chromosomes, it is evenly distributed along the
chromosome.

which  is a child of chromosome
although at present kinetochore is not a child of this term

I don't know what is right though.

VAl

Midori Harris <midori at ebi.ac.uk> wrote: 
> I think what would really help are those spatial relationship types 
> that we've talked about with Chris. Kinetochore-chromosome is one of 
> many cases where I suspect that biologists would expect to see some 
> connection (tho I'm sure Rex or Val can correct me if I'm wrong), so 
> we've used part_of even though it's far from ideal.
> 
> m
> 
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, David Hill wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure the kinetochore should be a part_of the chromosome. It 
> > attaches to the centromere, which is part of the chromosome.  I 
> > think we might want to have Rex weigh in on this too. He's a cell
biologist.
> >
> > David
> >
> > Midori Harris wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> Working on some cross-product definitions, I came up with a 
> >> question about whether two terms that are currently siblings should

> >> have an is_a link. The terms are:
> >>
> >>   attachment of spindle microtubules to chromosome GO:0051313
> >>   attachment of spindle microtubules to kinetochore GO:0008608
> >> 
> >> and I think we shoud have GO:0008608 is_a GO:0051313 because 
> >> kinetochore is part_of chromosome in the component ontology.
> >> 
> >> I've opened a SourceForge item, and I'd appreciate any comments.
> >> 
> >> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=440764&aid=232041
> >> 3&group_id=36855
> >> 
> >> thanks,
> >> midori
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Go mailing list
> >> Go at geneontology.org
> >> http://fafner.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/go
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Go mailing list
> Go at geneontology.org
> http://fafner.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/go
> 
>