[R] Bioconductor / AnnotationDbi: Why does a GOAllFrame contain more rows than its argument GoFrame?

[Jeff Newmiller]

You have addressed the wrong mailing list. See http://www.bioconductor.org/help/mailing-list/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Newmiller                        The     .....       .....  Go Live...
DCN:<jdnewmil at dcn.davis.ca.us>        Basics: ##.#.       ##.#.  Live Go...
                                      Live:   OO#.. Dead: OO#..  Playing
Research Engineer (Solar/Batteries            O.O#.       #.O#.  with
/Software/Embedded Controllers)               .OO#.       .OO#.  rocks...1k
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.

Asis Hallab <asis.hallab at gmail.com> wrote:
>Dear Bioconductor Experts,
>
>thank you for providing such a useful tool-set.
>
>I have a question regarding the package AnnotationDbi, specifically
>the classes GOFrame and GOALLFrame.
>
>During a GO Enrichment Analysis I create a data frame with Arabidopsis
>thaliana GO annotations and from that first a GOFrame and than from
>this GOFrame a GOALLFrame. Checking the result with
>
>nrow(  getGOFrameData(  athal.go.all.frame ) ) # The GOAllFrame
>
>and comparing it with
>
>nrow( athal.go.frame )                                     # The
>GoFrame
>
>I realize that the GOALLFrame has more than 5 times more rows than my
>original GO annotation table. If I provide
>organism='Arabidopsis thaliana'
>to the constructor of GOFrame this ratio increases even further.
>
>Unfortunately I could not find any documentation on this, so I feel
>forced to bother you with my questions:
>
>1) Why does GOALLFrame so many more annotations?
>2) Why and from where does it retrieve the organism specific ones that
>are added when a model organism like 'Arabidopsis thaliana' is
>provided?
>3) I suspected that all ancestors of annotated terms are added, but
>when I did so myself, I still got less GO term annotations? So do you
>add ancestors of the "is_a" type and possibly other relationship types
>like "part_of" etc. ?
>
>Please let me know your answers soon. Your help will be much
>appreciated.
>
>Kind regards!
>
>______________________________________________
>R-help at r-project.org mailing list
>https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>PLEASE do read the posting guide
>http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.