Y-3-H change definition to be more inclusive?

[noedelta]

pmid:22982234 I have just curated an Inhibitory Y-3-H; the OLS definition only mentions "third participant is shown to be necessary for the binding" - this does not include such instances as this - nor does it include any of the other variations of Y-3-H - there appear to be many.

Reported by: qweqwe6

[noedelta]

Hi,

I would rather leave the definition of 3 hybird as it is and use it exclusively when the third participant is required for the interaction (positive effect) to avoid confusion. The "negative three hybird" can be currently captured putting the third participant in as inhibitor/compatitor. If you think it is absolutely required, we could maybe create a new term for "negative three hybird" to capture these negative use cases. One of the original publications where three hybirds (using exclusively proteins) was introduced seems to actually assume the negative version of the three hybird (PMID:9287295).

Cheers,

Pablo.

Original comment by: pporras

[noedelta]

One more problem with inhibitory/negative 3 hybrid is that it would describe 3-body interaction that never happens as in the presence of the third partner the initial binary interaction is replaced with something else (a new binary interaction competing with the old one ?). What would be interaction type interred from such experiment ?

Original comment by: lukasz99

[noedelta]

• status: open --> closed
• Group: -->

Original comment by: pporras