[Ontology-editors] draft has_part announcement

[Midori Harris]

Yes - if you negatively regulate a negative regulation/regulator, you 
positively regulate the target. For example, A -n.r-> B could reduce 
production of an inhibitor, so you get less B -n.r.-> C happening, and 
therefore more of C.

m

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Jane Lomax wrote:

> Wow. Some of that seems really counterintuitive. Is this really true:
>
> A -neg_regulates-> B -neg_regulates-> C, then A -indirectly pos_regulates-> C
>
> ?
>
> Either way I think this merits some further discussion so we should probably 
> leave out for now...
>
> Jane
>
>
>
> David Hill wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A -regulates-> B -regulates-> C
>>> 
>>> then
>>> 
>>> A -indirectly regulates-> C
>>> 
>>> ?
>>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>> So here are the rules that fit when we were looking at examples from BP. 
>> Tanya will correct me if I'm misremembering.
>> 
>> A -regulates-> B -regulates-> C, then    A -indirectly regulates-> C
>> 
>> A -neg_regulates-> B -neg_regulates-> C, then A -indirectly pos_regulates-> 
>> C
>> 
>> 
>> A -neg_regulates-> B -pos_regulates-> C, then A -indirectly neg_regulates-> 
>> C
>> 
>> 
>> A -pos_regulates-> B -neg_regulates-> C, then A -indirectly neg_regulates-> 
>> C
>> 
>> 
>> A -neg_regulates-> B -regulates-> C, then A -indirectly regulates-> C
>> 
>> 
>> A -regulates-> B -neg_regulates-> C, then A -indirectly regulates-> C
>> 
>> 
>> A -pos_regulates-> B -regulates-> C, then A -indirectly regulates-> C
>> 
>> 
>> A -regulates-> B -pos_regulates-> C, then A -indirectly regulates-> C
>
>
>