Request on behalf of Hadil Alrohaif;
Can we have a new term "thymidylate synthase inhibitor binding" as a child term of drug binding (GO:0008144)?
Thymidylate synthase inhibitor is in ChEBI (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/chebi/searchId.do?chebiId=CHEBI:63720), but we couldn't request this term via TermGenie as Heiko said TS inhibitors are roles rather than distinct chemicals.
Evidence is from Figure 4 in PMID:19116913.
Please add GOC references;
GOC:BHF
GOC:hal
Chris,
Assigning to you. I think this is ok if we can get a GOCHE ID for it.
-D
Hi Chris, David,
Is is possible to get this done ASAP because my student needs to get her project finished in the next week or so.
Thanks very much!
Rachael.
A few issues:
biological role
classes at all, these are redundant with GO. If the goal is to show that the binding affects the thymidine synthase inhibition activity then this is best done with a lego diagram, perhaps following this template:But it depends what we're trying to capture from the paper. If it's just the raw binding data, is GO the best place for that, and if so, should we not capture the specific compounds (e.g. BCG 945) and not their class? In fact if this is for annotation of FRbeta, I think the paper only demonstrates binding for some subclasses of some folate-based thymidylate synthase inhibitors.
However, it looks like the point of the paper is to model a therapeutic intervention, targeting of FRbeta+ cells in synovial tissue to inhibit rheumatoid arthritis, via binding of a compound to the folate receptor, which then takes the compound up into the cell, where it is toxic to the cell (I think; I skimmed). We could capture this in a LEGO model. Should we? It's fairly different from traditional GO annotation, but maybe actually capturing the therapeutic model is of far more utility to translational medicine than traditional GO annotation?
I don't want to hold up a student project so perhaps we can just manually add the term to the ontology for now with a note saying it may be deprecated in future?