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

Review DrugBank statement polarities #1263

Open
bgyori opened this issue Mar 30, 2021 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #1265
Open

Review DrugBank statement polarities #1263

bgyori opened this issue Mar 30, 2021 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #1265

Comments

@bgyori
Copy link
Member

bgyori commented Mar 30, 2021

@cthoyt brought up an interesting point in #1262 (comment) about assumptions of polarity for statements derived from agonist and antagonist relations. We should review the extracted statements to see if the current assumptions result in any incorrect polarities.

@cthoyt
Copy link
Collaborator

cthoyt commented Mar 30, 2021

This also includes partial agonists, partial antagonists, and inverse agonists.

Here are some more of my concerns:

  • chelators are more about decreasing activity than amount, since they bind to the protein in a way that stops it from doing its job.
  • being a ligand of a protein does not necessarily say if it's an activator or a deactivator. It also doesn't say if it's in the normal site or an allosteric site, so if there's some hierarchy hiding behind all of these, ligand is probably on the top. I'd say the same about binding - I don't think it belongs in the inhibition action.
  • the chaperone should be in increase amounts, since I assume it's something that helps with stabilization

@cthoyt cthoyt linked a pull request Apr 1, 2021 that will close this issue
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 a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants