Closed DominikMartinat closed 8 months ago
tabbassidaloii
commented
1 year ago If I understood correctly, the issue is not with the codes but with the database itself, is it true?
Would the users get an output for these two examples as well? (I assume it will be multiple rows for each?)
If that is the case you can consider updating the codes, but please do the required follow-up to solve the issue with them.
DominikMartinat
commented
1 year ago The issue is on the part of BridgeDB mapping. Users would get output with multiple rows now, nut i think it would be problematic with combining results of multiple annotators. So I will update the code now and solve the mapping with BridgeDB.
tabbassidaloii
commented
1 year ago I see now. Okay, thank you!
tabbassidaloii
commented
8 months ago @DominikMartinat is it solved?
DominikMartinat
commented
8 months ago yes
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 11:57 AM Tooba Abbassi-Daloii < @.***> wrote:
@DominikMartinat https://github.com/DominikMartinat is it solved?
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/BioDataFuse/pyBiodatafuse/issues/54#issuecomment-1999410833, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ARDEKAN3QRPH4OW42PTTMMDYYLHZ3AVCNFSM6AAAAAA7S3SZ56VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSOJZGQYTAOBTGM . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
I have reworked merging for MolMeDB annotator with transporter genes and more importantlz i did same for metabolites as there are some one-to-manz mappings of identifier to InChIKey.
However there is an issue with KEGG C06861 and PubChem compound 107927 where each maps to InChIKeys of very different molecules, both of which have record in MolMeDB. I am pretty sure it is erroneous mapping and the merging works for all other relevant identifiers. Can I make PR with code as is, or should I solve the issue with identifiers first? @tabbassidaloii @YojanaGadiya