pgaudet
pgaudet
>1. Done > 2. should be is_a GO:0031047 gene silencing by RNA? > 3. Def should mention by siRNA? No, because there is another child that is not 'by RNA',...
Merged up in #17904
For the following 19 terms, there are about 100 EXP annotations to 7 terms, distribution is shown in the table: GOID | Term label | -- | -- | --...
Here's the spreadsheet with the annotations: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Rp5OohLV3pTw_q_5V2yOhdmUWcYOsXpxH5LupmXpH3A/edit#gid=0
What about terms that have not been used ? presumably those would not be missed ?
@ValWood can you check which version of the ontology you are looking at ?
@ValWood can you give an example of a term that is affected by these taxon constraints? 'reproductive structure development ' has no more logical definition
None of these have taxon constraints in QuickGO - are you sure this is the problem? (also, I dont think these really are reproductive processes
Is this now handled by https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/23012? Or, do we need to remove the relation 'GO:0110165 cellular anatomical entity' is_a 'CARO_0000000 anatomical entity'? Thanks, Pascale
@ValWood is this still causing problems?