Closed gocentral closed 8 years ago
Logged In: YES user_id=436423 Originator: NO
Hmm ... I'm getting confused ... it seems more accurate to keep a separate term, but more consistent with EC to merge ... literature seems a bit woolly too.
Do you know anything much about this? I'm also asking Kirill ...
m
Original comment by: mah11
Logged In: YES user_id=516865 Originator: YES
Nope these always confuse me ;) Intuitively I felt a merge, but I wasn't sure enough to suggest it.....
Original comment by: ValWood
Logged In: YES user_id=516865 Originator: YES
Also can we do a query to see if anything else is a synonym of an extant term? (Should it ever be allowed?)
Original comment by: ValWood
Logged In: YES user_id=436423 Originator: NO
I'm implementing Kirill's recommendation for these terms:
> Consider > "thioredoxin peroxidase activity" is_a "peroxiredoxin activity" > "tryparedoxin peroxidase activity" is_a "peroxiredoxin activity"
tryparedoxin peroxidase activity is a new term, GO:0033196
I'll see if I can figure out how to do a query or a script ... or ask John or Amelia.
Original comment by: mah11
Original comment by: mah11
Original comment by: mah11
thioredoxin peroxidase activity ios a narrower than synonym of peroxiredoxin activity GO:0051920GO:0008379:
bu is also a sibling.
thioredoxin peroxidase activity
?
Reported by: ValWood
Original Ticket: "geneontology/ontology-requests/4142":https://sourceforge.net/p/geneontology/ontology-requests/4142