Difference between revisions of "WormBase-Caltech Weekly Calls"
From WormBaseWiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchm |
m |
||
Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
*Arguably, common/central curation tool and database could speed up curation across different databases | *Arguably, common/central curation tool and database could speed up curation across different databases | ||
*Wormbase can push ahead with a pilot test | *Wormbase can push ahead with a pilot test | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | == July 19 2012== | ||
+ | |||
+ | CSHace data | ||
+ | *Wen will work on merging CSHace data into CITace | ||
+ | *We received PCR products before the final CSHace dump, but some were apparently missing | ||
+ | *We, collectively, don't remember what the arrangement was | ||
+ | *May have been decided that some PCR products remain with Sanger (at the time) to perform mappings | ||
+ | *May be problem if we had overwritten data or will overwrite data with new merger; we need to do appropriate comparisons and see what is most up to date | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Working with Reactome | ||
+ | *At Bioburator meeting, Karen met with Marc Gillespie to figure out how WormBase could best work with Reactome | ||
+ | *Disease pathways would be very useful | ||
+ | *If we have Overlap with their (human) pathway, we could highlight pathway components that human biologists arent' yet aware of | ||
+ | *Challenge is to associate worm pathways with human pathways | ||
+ | *What is the Reactome data model? Can we port our data to fit into their data model? | ||
+ | *Reactome curates in a Protege-based file format (flat files); similar to OWL format | ||
+ | *Can base pathway homologies on orthologs and/or Ranjana's disease curation | ||
+ | *If we adopt LEGO will we need to use Protege? Initial stages of data modeling using Protege and OWL-like representation, but not for long term | ||
+ | *LEGO would liket o develop their own tool |
Revision as of 16:37, 19 July 2012
2012 Meetings
July 12, 2012
Grant Renewal
- Like to have rough draft by end of July
- Including things we are doing now that are obvious
- 30 pages total
- 10 pages for Caltech, likely
- Focus on: Gene function, transcriptional networks, pathways
- How much have we curated? What is our rate of curation?
- What is the backlog? How much left to curate?
- Not caught up on RNAi and allele curation by end of this term
- Logical extensions to GO (we will discuss next week)
- How are we going to measure quality? Metrics?
- Coverage?
- Accuracy?
- What is a/the gold standard? These things aren't generally well defined
- Other species
- Automated triage for papers
- Use nematode Textpresso to estimate what's out there?
LEGO (Logical extensions to GO)
- Try to use GO annotations to make more expressive statements about gene function, pathways and processes
- Prior to this, curators took gene or gene product to describe subcellular localization, molecular function, and processes the product involved in
- Looking to create much bigger picture of the biology
- LEGO annotations: adding info to typical GO annotation, such as regulation targets
- TF has sequence-specific DNA binding activity; now add what the targets are
- If TF in nucleus, what cell types?
- Now we could start to create pathways and describe processes in more detail
- Being done with OWL, web ontology language
- Example, the dauer pathway; do more examples to see where the holes are
- 8 examples from C. elegans: involving cell types, signal transduction pathways, etc.
- Build much broader picture of the biology of the worm
- Filling in annotation gaps or inconsistencies
- Start to build annotation models
- Can we integrate with Wikipathways?
- Community annotations?
Protein-to-GO
- EBI's protein GO annotation system
- Data written to UniProt
- We agreed that we could clean up our GO annotation files and try this out
- Big picture: many groups may buy in to using Protein-to-GO, but will not become our only curation tool
- Can we use the OA to modify or create extensions to GO or Protein-to-GO?
- What would we have to do to make the OA better than/comparable to Protein-to-GO?
- We need a drop down for the relations
- We need an ontology domain to match to the relations
- One benefit/intention of centralized curation system was to have a central quality control system in place
- Don't need a central/unified curation system to have a central database, but may help reduce some effort/work
- Protein-to-GO has a lot of real time error checking, which is very helpful
- Arguably, common/central curation tool and database could speed up curation across different databases
- Wormbase can push ahead with a pilot test
July 19 2012
CSHace data
- Wen will work on merging CSHace data into CITace
- We received PCR products before the final CSHace dump, but some were apparently missing
- We, collectively, don't remember what the arrangement was
- May have been decided that some PCR products remain with Sanger (at the time) to perform mappings
- May be problem if we had overwritten data or will overwrite data with new merger; we need to do appropriate comparisons and see what is most up to date
Working with Reactome
- At Bioburator meeting, Karen met with Marc Gillespie to figure out how WormBase could best work with Reactome
- Disease pathways would be very useful
- If we have Overlap with their (human) pathway, we could highlight pathway components that human biologists arent' yet aware of
- Challenge is to associate worm pathways with human pathways
- What is the Reactome data model? Can we port our data to fit into their data model?
- Reactome curates in a Protege-based file format (flat files); similar to OWL format
- Can base pathway homologies on orthologs and/or Ranjana's disease curation
- If we adopt LEGO will we need to use Protege? Initial stages of data modeling using Protege and OWL-like representation, but not for long term
- LEGO would liket o develop their own tool