ISGO International Conference on Structural Genomics

1
ISGO International Conference on Structural
Genomics
Berlin, 10-13 October 2002
Task force on tracking and registration of targets

• Looking back to the committees earlier report

2
Report of Structural Genomics Task Force on
Target Tracking
April 4-6, 2001, Airlie House

• Steve Bryant
• Steve Brenner
• Yo Matsuo
• John Moult
• Janet Thornton

3
Airlie House Recommendations ...
Structural Genomics Laboratories shall adopt a
policy of open exchange of target information
to facilitate target selection and avoid
unnecessary duplication of effort to
demonstrate international cooperation in the
structural genomics effort
4
Airlie House Recommendations ...
Data exchange shall be by the simplest possible
method each laboratory shall maintain a
public ftp site listing target sequences and the
status of experimental work in a simple
standardized format to be finalized by a working
group the Airlie House meeting
5
Summary of discussion on target data-exchange
format
Information content laboratory-assigned
target name laboratory name date of most
recent update target sequence
status-of-work code
6
Summary of discussion on target data-exchange
format
Status-of-work code examples cloned
purified crystallized in PDB work
stopped
7
Target registry XML format ...
8
Summary of discussion on target data-exchange
mechanisms
Three options were considered a deluxe
central registry a bare bones central
registry a decentralized registry, where each
laboratory independently maintains a list of
targets under investigation
9
The bare bones target registry ...
10
The bare bones target registry ...
11
The bare bones target registry ...
12
The bare bones target registry ...
13
Airlie House Recommendations ...
The need for a central target registry should be
considered again in future laboratories may
evaluate the registry to be developed by John
Norvell for the NIH-funded centers if this
proves to be more efficient means of data
exchange, an international repository should be
created in future
14
Now that this has been done, questions for
discussion today ...
Does the bare bones central target registry
achieve its goals ? to avoid duplication to
demonstrate cooperation Should additional
information be included in the central target
registry ? target synonyms ? target
classification ? other suggested targets ?