Size: 3703
Comment: Generalized to account for other uses of the InTrans notation
|
Size: 5497
Comment:
|
Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
Line 9: | Line 9: |
|| '''Use Case Name''' : ../EnzymaticStimulationInTrans || | || '''Use Case Name''' : ../InTrans || |
Line 22: | Line 22: |
A user wants specify that a species is an enzyme that stimulates a reaction by binding with another copy of the same species |
A user wants specify ''in trans'', i.e. that a species is involved in an enzymatic or binding activity with another copy of the same species |
Line 27: | Line 28: |
1. User specifies a species to be the enzymatic stimulator 1. User specifies a reaction involving that species to be stimulated 1. User specifies that there is a enzymatic in trans stimulation relationship |
1. User specifies an existing enzymatic stimulation or binding activity 1. User specieis that the activity is ''in trans'' |
Line 31: | Line 31: |
As an alternative to modifying an existing relationship, this use case might be viewed as creating a different relationship in the first place, e.g. 1. User specifies a species to be the enzymatic stimulator 1. User specifies a reaction to be stimulated involving the same species 1. User specifies that there is a stimulation ''in trans'' relationship 1. User optionally specifies the evidence for the relationship |
|
Line 37: | Line 44: |
attachment:enzymaticstimulationintrans1_061115_dwk.png | attachment:intrans1_061121_dwk.png |
Line 39: | Line 46: |
An example using this notation follows: | This notation can be used to modify the edges for ../NonCovalentBinding or ../EnzymaticStimulation |
Line 41: | Line 48: |
attachment:enzymaticstimulationintrans2_061115_dwk.png |
attachment:intrans2_061121_dwk.png attachment:intrans4_061121_dwk.png An example using this notation for ../EnzymaticStimulation follows: attachment:intrans5_061121_dwk.png |
Line 45: | Line 58: |
The following example uses intrans for a ../NonCovalentBinding relationship: attachment:intrans3_061121_dwk.png In this example, a copy of protein A, binds a domain 1 to another copy of protein A at domain 2. |
|
Line 57: | Line 75: |
TBD | This is a fairly common occurance in the models. |
Line 59: | Line 77: |
== Variations == An earlier version of the notation uses small circles instead of the slashes. This earlier notation does not need to be supported. attachment:enzymaticstimulationintrans1_061115_dwk.png attachment:enzymaticstimulationintrans2_061115_dwk.png |
|
Line 71: | Line 96: |
[[PageComment2]] |
AllanKuchinsky - 2007-01-20 04:29:49 model level requires new Edge type, as does view level should there be a 'special case' of Groups in Cytoscape to represent 'sub-molecular' entities, such as domains, splice sites, etc. Is there a common enough set of semantics to justify this? Do we ever need to represent phenomena at the level of a sequence. MiritAladjem - 2007-02-01 09:02:47 Allan, in response to your second queston, we anticipate that people will want to use the Kohn annotation to depict interactins within molecules. We already have some people collaborating with us to develop such maps. It will be good to support this effort by allowing sub-molecular interactions. The level of a sequence might be a derivativce of sub-molecules. |
Summary
A user wants specify in trans, i.e. that a species is involved in an enzymatic or binding activity with another copy of the same species
Step-by-Step User Action
- User specifies an existing enzymatic stimulation or binding activity
User specieis that the activity is in trans
- User optionally specifies the evidence for the relationship
As an alternative to modifying an existing relationship, this use case might be viewed as creating a different relationship in the first place, e.g.
- User specifies a species to be the enzymatic stimulator
- User specifies a reaction to be stimulated involving the same species
User specifies that there is a stimulation in trans relationship
- User optionally specifies the evidence for the relationship
Visual Aides
The Kohn notation for enzymatic stimulation in trans is the following:
attachment:intrans1_061121_dwk.png
This notation can be used to modify the edges for ../NonCovalentBinding or ../EnzymaticStimulation
attachment:intrans2_061121_dwk.png
attachment:intrans4_061121_dwk.png
An example using this notation for ../EnzymaticStimulation follows:
attachment:intrans5_061121_dwk.png
In this example, a copy of protein A, catalyzes the phosphorylation of another copy of protein A.
The following example uses intrans for a ../NonCovalentBinding relationship:
attachment:intrans3_061121_dwk.png
In this example, a copy of protein A, binds a domain 1 to another copy of protein A at domain 2.
Requirements for Cytoscape
Assuming that this can use the same approach that is used for ../ShowInhibition, it could be modeled as a Hyperedge containing node1: C (hyperedge attribute: enzymatic stimulation in trans), node2: A, node3: A
View: Use case for hyperedge view
Importance
This is a fairly common occurance in the models.
Variations
An earlier version of the notation uses small circles instead of the slashes. This earlier notation does not need to be supported.
attachment:enzymaticstimulationintrans1_061115_dwk.png
attachment:enzymaticstimulationintrans2_061115_dwk.png
Other Examples
Comments
Shared ../MimEditorUseCaseComments
This is a special case of an ../EnzymaticStimulation. It is intended to clarify that more than one copy of a particular protein is involved in the interaction.
This could be modeled in BioPAX as a Catalysis object (e.g. Catalysis object with participants = a Biochemical Reaction object and a enzyme A, Controlled = the Biochemical Reaction object (a reaction in trans as defined in "in trans reactions"cannot communicate that is specifically a covalent phosphorylation reaction, Controller=A, Control-Type = Activation, and Direction = IRREVERSIBLE-LEFT-TO-RIGHT)
AllanKuchinsky - 2007-01-20 04:29:49
model level requires new Edge type, as does view level
should there be a 'special case' of Groups in Cytoscape to represent 'sub-molecular' entities, such as domains, splice sites, etc. Is there a common enough set of semantics to justify this?
Do we ever need to represent phenomena at the level of a sequence.
MiritAladjem - 2007-02-01 09:02:47
Allan, in response to your second queston, we anticipate that people will want to use the Kohn annotation to depict interactins within molecules. We already have some people collaborating with us to develop such maps. It will be good to support this effort by allowing sub-molecular interactions. The level of a sequence might be a derivativce of sub-molecules.