From: Pankaj J. <pj...@co...> - 2007-11-21 18:09:49
|
Georgios V. Gkoutos (Genetics) wrote: > > Yes,you're right. One obviously needs more information to define normality > - information that cannot be held in PATO or MP for that matter. What level > the description is applied to (i.e litter level, phenodeviant etc) depends > on the observation. As you suggest, how small is defined for the MP term > "small hear" (MP:0002188) obviously depends on the particular strain. It > would be impractical to have all this information in MP (i.e. small heart > for BALB/c strain or C3H etc). As PATO is meant to be applicable accross > species this would be unachievable. So this information is meant to be held > elsewhere. For example, a particular assay could dictate what's normal and > how this normality is define.As the assay could be animal/strain etc. > specific it could provide the range of normality. > >> I agree. Often it is not only in reference to another strain/allele, it is also experiment specific as I have found out (My group curates data on rice and other cereals). Even though there are specific standards in the species specific community, the assay scales vary. Majority reports adopt their own scales customized to their needs. With this view, even though these values (small/large/increase/decrease) are good for comparisons, they are somewhat ambiguous due to non-standardization and/or has dependency on the metadata associated with it. Pankaj |