[Ontology-editors] another question about biogenesis/organization

[Valerie Wood]

mm physiology isn't right.

I still think we need a grouping term in the ontology, not just the 
option to create these union terms in slims.
By partitioning my cell wall terms into biogenesis and organization it 
is  quite possible that gene sets which previously showed enrichment to 
the "organization or biogenesis" term will no longer do so......

val


Jane Lomax wrote:

> Yeah, I know what you mean Val. I'm sure we often use union terms 
> because there is no neat name to encompass the meaning of the two 
> terms. They do cause problems for building the ontology though.
>
> Don't think 'cell physiology' would work - we got rid of all the 
> physiology terms because we couldn't define them as distinct it from 
> the metabolism terms...
>
> Jane
>
> Valerie Wood wrote:
>
>> This sounds quite complicated (for users), but it would be useful if 
>> there is no way to create the "compound terms" . It seems though, 
>> that these are often reasonable biological concepts but we don't have 
>> a good way to name them with a grouping term (there must be something 
>> which covers both organization and biogenesis....)
>>
>> It is similar to the situation with "small molecule metabolism"
>> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2106200&group_id=36855&atid=440764 
>>
>>
>> val
>>
>> Chris Mungall wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Currently, no.
>>>
>>> But we are reengineering a lot of the software. The new framework  
>>> allows for arbitrary boolean intersection/union combinations. We  
>>> should have this in a standalone script soon, but maybe a bit 
>>> longer  for amigo
>>>
>>> (we're already using taxon unions for the GAF validation checks)
>>>
>>> On Jun 17, 2009, at 5:03 AM, Jane Lomax wrote:
>>>
>>>> Being able to have union terms in GO slims would solve this. I'm 
>>>> not  sure it's something we would want to code into the ontology.
>>>>
>>>> Can map2slim handle term unions, Chris?
>>>>
>>>> Jane
>>>>
>>>> Midori Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, the problem with "and" is that it could make a gene  
>>>>> product annotated to a descendant term look like it's involved in  
>>>>> everything covered by a parent (e.g. annotate to biogenesis and  
>>>>> imply annotation also to organization, which includes disassembly).
>>>>>
>>>>> so that doesn't rule out "organization or biogenesis" ...
>>>>>
>>>>> m
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Valerie Wood wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "organization and biogenesis" ? ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Midori Harris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ow, my head.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we've worked out reasonable definitions for  
>>>>>>> "organization" and "biogenesis" and we're just about there for  
>>>>>>> applying them consistently. What we don't have -- and 
>>>>>>> apparently  you could really use -- is some term that covers 
>>>>>>> everything we're  putting under both organization and biogenesis 
>>>>>>> ... "anything that  happens to a cellular component".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What to call it, though?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> m
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Valerie Wood wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, I still haven't got my head around this...see my recent  
>>>>>>>> SF item.....problem with my slimming
>>>>>>>> I am still trying to get a slim for a tutorial which gives 
>>>>>>>> good  coverage of all of my annotated gene products.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Previously I had the term "cell wall organization and  
>>>>>>>> biogenesis" which covered all of cell wall organization and  
>>>>>>>> biogenesis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now organization and biogenesis are "disjoint" (am I using the  
>>>>>>>> correct terminology?) I need to include *Both* the 
>>>>>>>> organization  and biogenesis term, when it seems as though I 
>>>>>>>> really want one  term to cover both of these cell wall 
>>>>>>>> processes at this level,  and that they are intimately related. 
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how my  original annotations got split between the 
>>>>>>>> the 2 new terms but  there isn't much overlap now......
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 73 to biogenesis
>>>>>>>> and 63 to organization
>>>>>>>> 21 to both
>>>>>>>> However when I look through the list I am pretty sure all of  
>>>>>>>> those annotated to biogenesis to equally be annotated to  
>>>>>>>> organization.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, if i don't include both of these terms in the slim, I get  
>>>>>>>> gene products which do not map to a high level term.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Val
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Ontology-editors mailing list
>>>>> Ontology-editors at geneontology.org
>>>>> http://fafner.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/ontology-editors
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ontology-editors mailing list
>>>> Ontology-editors at geneontology.org
>>>> http://fafner.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/ontology-editors
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
 The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute is operated by Genome Research 
 Limited, a charity registered in England with number 1021457 and a 
 company registered in England with number 2742969, whose registered 
 office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE.