[Ontology-editors] draft has_part announcement

[Jane Lomax]

Ah, okay - I see!


David Hill wrote:
> Yup, you got it!
>
> Midori Harris wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>


-- 
Dr Jane Lomax
GO Editorial Office
EMBL-EBI
Wellcome Trust Genome Campus
Hinxton
Cambridgeshire, UK
CB10 1SD

p: +44 1223 492516
f: +44 1223 494468