Open cmungall opened 3 years ago
Shape itself maps to PATO:0000052. This is what I found from OLS. Note: I know you'd like a single ontology and preferably PATO (or OBA) but for the ones, I couldn't find PATO (or OBA), I've included MICRO just as a placeholder. One term was in OBA (cell shape). So we may explore the option of making OBA terms for the (blanks) and MICRO terms?
@cmungall , manual curation for these too? or OGER?
Shape | CUI |
---|---|
bacillus | MICRO:0000401 |
coccus | MICRO:0000402 |
coccobacillus | MICRO:0000366 |
spiral | PATO:0000404 (coiled?) |
filament | MICRO:0000042 (cell filament?) |
disc | PATO:0001874 (discoid?) |
vibrio | MICRO:0000414 (vibrioid cell?) |
pleomorphic | PATO:0001356 |
square | PATO:0000413 |
fusiform | PATO:0002400 |
flask | - |
star | PATO:0002065 (star-shaped) |
spindle | PATO:0001409 (spindle-shaped) |
triangular | PATO:0001875 |
irregular | PATO:0001781 (irregular thickness); PATO:0002141 (irregular density); MICRO:0000333 (irregular cell) |
ring | PATO:0002539 (ring-shaped) |
branced | PATO:0000402 (brancHed?) |
spirochete | - |
tailed | PATO:0001880 (caudate?) |
cell shape | OBA:0000052 |
How formal do we want to be about defining anaerobe
as an organism? The definitions is straight forward (to me at least):
an organism that does not require oxygen for growth
Do we want to add a class anaerobic growth process
and add axiom like this:
participates in some anaerobic growth process
Also, how far much detail do we want in defining anaerobic growth process
? Minimally, I think it would be something like:
biological process
- growth process
- anaerobic growth process
If we wanted, we could formally define anaerobic growth process
equivalent to:
growth process and not (has input some oxygen)
This would allow for more general queries that use (or don't use) certain materials as during growth.
Is this done?
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 10:35 marcin joachimiak notifications@github.com wrote:
Closed #4 https://github.com/Knowledge-Graph-Hub/kg-microbe/issues/4.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/Knowledge-Graph-Hub/kg-microbe/issues/4#event-4348336052, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMOOFX7VKYYBFNDAROLDS7VMY5ANCNFSM4U664HWA .
Nodes for shapes with a prefix of 'Shape:' were created. The CURIEs listed above were neither confirmed nor rejected.
We'll still need direction on how to address this. Is the temporary 'Shape:' prefix okay or do we hard-code the above CURIEs corresponding to the various shapes?
Let's keep this open while we decide our long term strategy:
However, for now, it is OK to just do something like what we are doing
However, can you make the CURIEs like this:
microtraits.cell_shape_enum:disc
To correspond to our schema (#13 )
Split from #2
1 spirochete 1 ring 1 triangular 1 cell_shape 2 tailed 3 branced 3 spindle 3 star 4 irregular 5 flask 7 square 11 disc 12 fusiform 60 pleomorphic 289 vibrio 328 filament 400 spiral 402 coccobacillus 1563 coccus 3794 NA 4035 bacillus
I think the majority should map to PATO. We may want to consider making OBA terms for some