Skip to content
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

Glyma.su chen 2022.yml #83

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Dec 13, 2024
Merged

Glyma.su chen 2022.yml #83

merged 5 commits into from
Dec 13, 2024

Conversation

ellatownsend90
Copy link
Collaborator

Curated and ready for review

Fixed Yamlint issue
@ellatownsend90
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ready and awaiting a review

Copy link
Collaborator

@StevenCannon-USDA StevenCannon-USDA left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This one mostly looks good to me, but I would like to see the comments be made more precise and specific.
Rather than "the role of Ft homologs is not fully understood since so many go into flowering time", let's use these points from the abstract:

  - GmFT3b expression was induced by photoperiod and circadian rhythm and was more responsive to long-day (LD) conditions, but there were no significant differences in flowering time between the wild-type, the GmFT3b overexpressors, and the ft3b knockouts under natural long-day, short-day, or LD conditions.
  - GmFT3b acts redundantly in flowering time regulation and may be compensated by other FT homologs in soybean.

For the synopsis - again, I think this should be more precise and specific. Let's use:
phenotype_synopsis: A flowering time locus, orthologous to Arabidopsis FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT), but apparently redundant with other FT loci in soybean.

For the gene_model_full_id, this one from assembly one is OK ... glyma.Wm82.gnm1.ann1.Glyma19g28390 ... but somewhat preferable would be one of the newer annotations. The first choice (we need to document this) would be from assembly 4 (glyma.Wm82.gnm4.ann1; glyma.Wm82.gnm4.ann1.Glyma.19G108100), because those genes are in the current gene families. For example, the FT genes are in this family:
http://dev.lis.ncgr.org:50082/?family=Legume.fam3.00317

So, please change gene_model_full_id to glyma.Wm82.gnm4.ann1.Glyma.19G108100

@ScottKalberer
Copy link
Collaborator

I have completed the corrections requested by Steven Cannon last month and added a few additions of my own as well. The file should be ready for review and the branches that then be merged. My only question is whether the classical locus is actually "FT" as stated in the YML document. I don't believe that I can find an actual classical locus name in the publication and my searches elsewhere only indicate it was a "florigen" and was associated with other genes with classical names E1, E2, and E3. I can try to find the document "Palmer RG, Pfeiffer TW, Buss GR, Kilen TC. Qualitative genetics Soybeans: improvement, production, and uses. 3rd ed. Madison (WI): ASA, CSSA, and SSSA; 2004. p. 137–214" and search for it there.

@ScottKalberer
Copy link
Collaborator

I have now talked to Steven Cannon over the phone and we have decided to remove the classical locus field.

Copy link
Collaborator

@ScottKalberer ScottKalberer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have reviewed and approved this gene function study and will now merge the glyma.Su_Chen_2022 branch into the main branch.

@ScottKalberer ScottKalberer merged commit a87ebe6 into main Dec 13, 2024
2 checks passed
@ScottKalberer ScottKalberer deleted the glyma.Su_Chen_2022.yml branch December 13, 2024 23:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants