search

geneontology / go-annotation

This repository hosts the tracker for issues pertaining to GO annotations.
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
34 stars 10 forks source link

SPKW DNA binding #1825

Open ValWood opened 6 years ago

ValWood commented 6 years ago

hi @sylvainpoux Let's do this one next. I don't think these should map to DNA binding. Val

KW-0238 no evidence for DNA binding DNA binding S.pombe P36627 translational activator DNA binding S.pombe O13852 poz1 no exvidence for direct DNA binding? (links Rap1 to Tpz1 but does not bind DNA) DNA binding S.pombe O14362 no DNA binding domain DNA binding S.pombe O94530 tRNA N6-threonyl-carbamoyl-adenosine (t6A) Sua5 DNA binding S.pombe Q09769 mitochondrial matrix Lon protease DNA binding S.pombe O14362 DNA binding S.pombe O42934 chromodomain /nucleosomal histone binding DNA binding S.pombe Q9P6R8 ubiquitin-protein ligase E3/GCN5-related N acetyltransferase fusion protein (spliceosome associated) DNA binding S.pombe O60158 bouquet formation protein Bqt4 (does not bind DNA directly) DNA binding S.pombe O94530 tRNA N6-threonyl-carbamoyl-adenosine (t6A) Sua5 ~DNA binding S.pombe P79011 transcription factor TFIIE beta subunit, TFIIEB~ ignore, is OK ~DNA binding S.pombe O94416 transcription factor TFIIF complex alpha subunit Tfg1~ is OK

DNA binding S.pombe O94704 Ino80 subunit (I don't think this subunit binds DNA?) DNA binding S.pombe O14210 Ino80 (I don't think this subunit binds DNA?) ~DNA binding S.pombe P36627~ duplicate DNA binding S.pombe Q9P7S9 Ino80 (I don't think this subunit binds DNA?) ~DNA binding S.pombe O13852 poz1 s part of shelterin bridge doesn't bind to DNA~ duplicate of above DNA binding S.pombe Q9Y7I8 ribosome-associated chaperone, zuotin ~DNA binding S.pombe P49373~ looks OK ~DNA binding S.pombe O94416~ looks OK

from

1178

1103

1397

1161

https://github.com/geneontology/go-annotation/issues/1503

suzialeksander commented 6 months ago

@ValWood does this issue still exist?

ValWood commented 6 months ago

Yes I checked the first 4 and they are still there.

A lot of these are quite "off-target" false positive and will generate a lot of errors throughout the GO corpus. I don't notice them any more because I filter them, but false-positives should be prioritised- otherwise we are no better than the function predictors.