[Go] MT attachment to chromosome

[Midori Harris]

Hi Lisa,

It would be great if you could ask Iain Cheeseman what he thinks. We seem 
to be converging on agreeing that kinetochore-port_of-chromosome is the 
best we can do for now, until we implement more relationship types, but it 
can't hurt to get an expert's view.

(Great to hear fraom you again, too -- it's been a while!)

Midori

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Lisa Matthews wrote:

> Hi all,
> There is a really good review that just came out on this written by  the 
> Cheeseman group (they've done a lot on defining the highly conserved 
> kinetochore DNA to microtubule molecular connectivity  PMID: 19000831.  I can 
> run this question by  Iain Cheeseman who has recently helped Reactome out 
> with some annotations on centrosome function.
> Lisa
>
> Valerie Wood wrote:
>> 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=2320413&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
>>> 
>>>
>>> 
>>
>>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Go mailing list
>> Go at geneontology.org
>> http://fafner.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/go
>>