Closed fypoadmin closed 9 years ago
have finally had a look at this ...
The challenge, I think, is that what happens in the presence of caffeine + (HU or IR) probably shouldn't be considered "normal" -- with caffeine, the cell doesn't show its normal response (i.e. stopping at checkpoint) to HU/IR. So I don't think there's going to be a nice handy GO term to point to in a phenotype term.
I could just add a term and not have an xp (or ask George if he has any ideas ... maybe could use more than one GO term?)
"DNA damage checkpoint override in response to caffeine abolished" or something to that effect?
Original comment by: mah11
That seems to make sense from my memory what this annotation was about.
VAl
Original comment by: ValWood
Original comment by: mah11
will add GO term to use in xp
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3445338&group\_id=36855&atid=440764
Original comment by: mah11
DNA damage checkpoint override in response to caffeine abolished FYPO:0000701
(haven't got a GO term for xp after all, but no worries)
Original comment by: mah11
Original comment by: mah11
closing - term is now in curation tool
Original comment by: mah11
Original comment by: mah11
OK I never did delete the old annotation so I chneged it artemis to DNA damage checkpoint override in response to caffeine abolished which means it will come through in the next warning files until added to the appropriate file... (I think?)
Original comment by: ValWood
should do ...
Original comment by: mah11
I am tidying up the random qualifiers which I couln't move to annotation extensions
For this one /controlled_curation="term=phenotype, DNA damage checkpoint defects; qualifier=caffeine_mediated_override|required; db_xref=PMID:10224243; cv=phenotype; date=19700101"
This one looks as though there should be a "different" phenotype term to describe this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10224243?dopt=Abstract
for now I am deleting this phenotype annotation and we can make a new one whenever (no hurry can wait until after migration)
Original comment by: ValWood