Open cmungall opened 1 month ago
Example from MP:
... 'inheres in part of' some 'calcium ion homeostasis'
... 'inheres in' some ('calcium atom' and ('part of' some blood))
In GO:
id: GO:0055074 ! calcium ion homeostasis
intersection_of: GO:0048878 ! chemical homeostasis
intersection_of: RO:0002332 CHEBI:29108 ! calcium(2+)
The MRCA of the two CHEBI terms is "molecular entity"
This isn't causing any real problems since HP, MP are asserting the hierarchy and aren't particularly dependent on logical definitions, in particular between process phenotypes and "amount" phenotypes (other than for matching between ontologies, for which just agreeing on an arbitrary CHEBI term is needed), but it does limit how we use CHEBI as a linkage
Another oddity of the current situation
The phenotype ontologies make the same classic mistake used by GO originally, in assuming CHEBI follows a biologist-friendly nomenclature. It does not. We are now undergoing an expensive refactor.
protonation states
See https://github.com/ebi-chebi/ChEBI/issues/4482
calcium atom
, RHEA/GO usescalcium(2+)
(uniprot synonym: "calcium")ammonia
, RHEA/GO usesammonium
(uniprot synonym: "NH4+")carnosine
, RHEA/GO usescarnosine zwitterion
(uniprot synonym: "carnosine")L vs D forms
In a mammal, it's usually obvious that
glucose
meansD-glucose
amino acid
meansL-amino acid
There may be some exceptions (e.g. some D amino acids may be synthesized in the brain but it's not clear if this is a distinct pathway or just racemization of the L pathway), but in general it's always a specific form
CHEBI always provides a triad of stereochemical-agnostic plus L and D (and sometimes racemized forms..). Really the agnostic form should never be annotated to. You always know the form.
In GO we are slowly moving to committing to the specific form