Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 7, 2020. It is now read-only.

Q how to annotate regulation upstream within a process #75

Open
ValWood opened this issue Feb 13, 2017 · 3 comments
Open

Q how to annotate regulation upstream within a process #75

ValWood opened this issue Feb 13, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@ValWood
Copy link

ValWood commented Feb 13, 2017

upstream regulation

@ukemi @vanaukenk would this match what you would do in LEGO?

@ValWood
Copy link
Author

ValWood commented Feb 13, 2017

then I also see

"indirectly activates" which might be the correct term to use?

The use of the word indirect here worries me a little because in general when biologists say some effect us "indirect" it isn't usually regulatory at all in a normal cell, its just an effect of breaking an upstream process.

@ValWood
Copy link
Author

ValWood commented Feb 13, 2017

The outcome of the first question will be important for
geneontology/go-ontology#12859
because it will provide the mechanism in traditional annotation to continue to capture some of the information which is currently represented on the the single step process terms (this might be a pombase hack anyway, but if we know which relations to use we can fix).

@dosumis
Copy link
Contributor

dosumis commented Feb 13, 2017

It is correct to use regulates for 'unknown steps, incomplete pathway' (although strictly it is the activity of the substrate that is regulated, not the substrate).

then I also see
"indirectly activates" which might be the correct term to use?

This relation should be deprecated.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants