[Go] MT attachment to chromosome

[Midori Harris]

Since GO uses the meaning that includes associated proteins, I think we're 
pretty close to this (now that we're no longer using the "mitotic 
chromosome" and "interphase chromosome terms").

m

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Chisholm, Rex FSM wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
>