https://oldclassic.wikipathways.org/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Thread%3AUsing_GO_terms_for_datanode_xrefs_%281%29Thread:Using GO terms for datanode xrefs (1) - Revision history2026-06-20T18:26:44ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.13.1https://oldclassic.wikipathways.org/index.php?title=Thread:Using_GO_terms_for_datanode_xrefs_%281%29&diff=70865&oldid=prevMaintBot: New page: Hi Andra, I'm not sure this is a good use of GO terms. It's actually a "bug" if they are showing up in search results for datanode xrefs. They were intended for secondary identifiers for b...2013-09-12T21:20:11Z<p>New page: Hi Andra, I'm not sure this is a good use of GO terms. It's actually a "bug" if they are showing up in search results for datanode xrefs. They were intended for secondary identifiers for b...</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>Hi Andra,<br />
I'm not sure this is a good use of GO terms. It's actually a "bug" if they are showing up in search results for datanode xrefs. They were intended for secondary identifiers for backpage annotations only. And even in the case where the exact gene is not known, filling it in with a GO term implicates a lot of genes in that role, which is not likely to be accurate either. What do you think? <br />
- Alex Pico</div>MaintBot