-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
NTR? - term for "negative regulation of glucose metabolic process" #20610
Comments
Hi @krchristie Looking at the abstract I think the papers talks about glucose homeostasis rather than glucose metabolism, at least according to GO's definitions. I also think 'metabolic process' is not really useful as an annotation, if we dont know whether a protein is involved in synthesizing or degrading a compound then we should probably not annotate it. And regulation is even more indirect. To discuss on a call ? Thanks, Pascale |
I think it would be helpful in searching.
You are correct.
Perhaps. It's worth noting that this paper mentions the word
The word "homeostasis didn't even enter my mind to look for. When I look now in Protege, I don't see any connection between
The annotations I made are:
If you like. |
Like for other BP terms, we should think about the biological program that "negative regulation of glucose metabolic process" would describe. I tend to think of the negative and positive regulatory programs being tightly coupled, so maybe glucose homeostasis is the more useful class for the GO biological program. The way the term is being used now, are curators trying to say that a gene product's activity has a negative causal effect on glucose metabolism? That would be a good use case for our gp2term relationship-- a curator could annotate to "glucose metabolic process" using the "acts causally upstream of, negative effect" relation. |
Jumping in from left field, "glucose metabolism" seems like a grouping term for really diverse processes (glycolysis and gluconeogenesis, for a start, as well as all the other processes in Karen's list at the top of this ticket) that have diverse, physiological state-specific, tissue-specific, and taxon specific roles in an organism's energy economy, so should "(positive OR negative) regulation of glucose metabolic process" likewise be a grouping term, useful for collecting all of these processes into a single bucket but not normally useful for annotating the roles of specific gene products in specific processes. On this grouping view, Paul's question has as many diverse answers as there are diverse processes / states / tissues / organisms. @ukemi ? |
I think this is a reasonable question, but I should point out that there is not currently a It's also worth pointing out that for the I agree that you have a good question Paul as I have made annotations to a "plain" regulation term many times when it is not clear to me what the positive or negative direction would actually mean. However, it seems that the question of exactly what one would be trying to say applies equally to the existing term Looking above at the existing glycogen regulation terms, one can ask what the directional regulation of metabolic process terms mean when negative regulation of a biosynthetic process and negative regulation of a catabolic process would have opposite effects on levels of the metabolized compound. To bring it back to this specific question, it seems that we should either follow the consistent structure of regulation terms that we have had elsewhere and add the missing Here are the child terms of |
It seems odd that we have the general and positive terms, but not the negative term for regulation of glucose metabolic process. We already have more specific types of negative regulation of glucose metabolic processes, so if we create the neg reg term, it will have subtypes immediately.
@pgaudet @ukemi - Any objections to creating the neg reg term?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: