Open kevinschaper opened 1 year ago
Here's a snippet of the api response that populates this table:
"subject_namespace": "CHEBI",
"subject_category": "biolink:PhenotypicQuality",
"subject_closure": [
"CHEBI:50906",
"CHEBI:35842",
"CHEBI:52217",
"CHEBI:33232",
"CHEBI:67079",
"BFO:0000002",
"BFO:0000017",
"CHEBI:35472",
"BFO:0000020",
"CHEBI:35475",
"CHEBI:23888",
"BFO:0000001",
"PATO:0000001",
"BFO:0000023"
],
"subject_label": "non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug",
Nope this makes no sense at all (the fact that this drug shows up as a quality). This should be moved to the PHENIO repo and fixed asap by Harry; most likely, PATO quality has a faulty top level wiring from one of the participating ontologies.
I will transfer to PHENIO and check on this
PATO:0000001 has a root in BFO in PHENIO: OK, that's fine.
But here's the path from CHEBI:35475 to the PATO root in PHENIO:
Getting suspicious about that BFO <-> CHEBI connection at role
, and also not clear on how that class gets assigned a subclass of the PATO root (yet)
It's very odd that this is (as per the Monarch API response) the only drug that's a PhenotypicQuality, since there are other CHEBI terms in the same neighborhood, but here's one clue: others, like CHEBI:65265, may have biological role in addition to application:
It might be that it's the only drug with an association that we show.
Also, I knew this issue would need those visualizations from oak but I didn't know how to make them, @caufieldjh, could you add the commands you used to generate them if you still have that handy?
What's even stranger is that in KG-Phenio, CHEBI:35475 is biolink:Drug
and CHEBI:65265 has a category of biolink:biological_role_mixin
, so they clearly undergo different category assignment but neither of them is PhenotypicQuality.
Are these derived from PHENIO or KG-Phenio, and which version?
Also, I knew this issue would need those visualizations from oak but I didn't know how to make them, @caufieldjh, could you add the commands you used to generate them if you still have that handy?
Oh yeah, something like the following works:
runoak -i sqlite:obo:phenio viz PATO:0000001 CHEBI:65265 -p i,p --no-view -o phenio_pato_antacid.png
Add -S your_custom_style.json
to modify the style. You can base if off the default in src/oaklib/conf/obograph-style.json
Are these derived from PHENIO or KG-Phenio, and which version?
I believe it's 20230822, since this is my build from 2023-08-24, but I can't be 100% confident that there isn't some kind of timezone shenanigans going on that would have let me get a 20230825 phenio into a 2023-08-24 monarch-kg. (I mean, probably not, unless you've moved your build process to New Zealand 🤔 )
-- edit to add, it would be great to capture version info for sources, maybe even just as a node/edge property
I skimmed. I think there are two things going on here:
So this is just funny names AFAICT
@cmungall What should we do practically here? should we merge chebi role and pato quality explicitly in phenio? That seems a bit.. strong?
The original link doesn't work but this does: https://monarchinitiative.org/PATO:0000001#chemical-to-pathway
This is odd, but maybe fine? Does this look like something odd in phenio @matentzn or is it expected? (I'm assuming the d2p and g2p associations are expected)
http://next.monarchinitiative.org/node/PATO:0000001?associations=biolink:ChemicalToPathwayAssociation