Closed Antonialock closed 1 year ago
There now seem to be annotations to some of these terms, even though the spreadsheets are completed...
These have no more EXP annotations:
Obsoleted - no annotations:
TAIR is done
Reviewed here https://github.com/geneontology/go-annotation/issues/4694
Closing. Left overs are in #26002 #26003 and #26004
So, Val and I think some terms need to be obsoleted in the ontology.
We started talking about it when I requested a long precomposed BP to describe fep1. Fep1 is a DNA binding transcriptional repressor that suppresses transcription of iron starvation genes when there is plenty of iron around. I requested: "negative regulation of ferrichrome biosynthetic process by negative regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase II promoter in response to iron"
Melanie told me that the term is too specific and I could either annotate to "unconnected" process terms, or string them together using annotation extensions. I definitely want to nest the terms because they "belong" together.
Val then pointed out to me that I was trying to incorporate the function of the enzyme in my process term - and I could make the term a lot less nasty by taking the "MF part" out. We connect MFs to BPs using extensions, and I shouldn't treat the transcription factors any differently.
This is an example annotation for one of our kinases:
The kinase is also annotated to these biological processes as separate annotations, but here they have been connected to the MF.
So, instead of annotating fep1 to "negative regulation of ferrichrome biosynthetic process by negative regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase II promoter in response to iron"
I should annotate it to the MF transcriptional repressor activity, RNA polymerase II core promoter proximal region sequence-specific binding has_input gene:sib1 part_of negative regulation of ferrichrome biosynthetic process in response to iron
and to the BP negative regulation of ferrichrome biosynthetic process in response to iron
I'm not focussing on transcripton factors at the moment, so it is very confusing that there are terms in the ontology that we "shouldn't" annotate to (if we can't request new sibling terms then I suppose we shouldn't really annotate to the existing terms anyway right?)
So, I'm asking if you could obsolete all the transcription regulatory terms that we "shouldn't" annotate to (and for which you won't create new sibling terms) - many are descendants of GO:0006357
@ValWood @mcourtot