Fix 'is biomarker for' relationship by either renaming it or removing it when not appropriate

[pnrobinson]

The current is_biomarker relationship is almost always picking out items that are not biomarkers for the disease. Can we consider renaming the relation type to something that is less committal.

• co_citation (minimal commitment)
• co_mention_in_abstract
• altered_gene_expression_in_disease (in my opinion the maximal commitment that is still correct for the entries I have seen)

[kshefchek]

Would this term work? https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/ontologies/sio/terms?iri=http%3A%2F%2Fsemanticscience.org%2Fresource%2FSIO_001123

It would be nice to stick with RO but I don't see anything similar, or go with https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/ontologies/ro/properties?iri=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.obolibrary.org%2Fobo%2FRO_0040035

[pnrobinson]

The definition says: A gene-disease association in which the disease phenotype is associated with an altered expression of the gene. "the gene" probably refers to the disease gene and not to other genes, although the definition seems a little ambiguous to me. "disease_relationship" has a curator note: Do not use this relation directly.

Can we suggest a proper term to RO instead? Can we debate about the term we think is correct and then make an RO issue?

[kshefchek]

We've removed CTD gene-disease so this is less apparent, will re-home this ticket to dipper

[TomConlin]

Noting that is biomarker for is not in OLS nor Ontobee nor in our https://github.com/monarch-initiative/dipper/blob/master/translationtable/GLOBAL_TERMS.yaml could someone chime in with how/where/why it appears down stream from dipper?

edit: the same is true of Peter's original is_biomarker