Search Mailing List Archives

Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[Gofriends] Mistake in GO structure?

Robinson, Peter peter.robinson at
Mon Jan 17 11:05:27 PST 2011

I think that the current terms do not state clearly enough whether cellular respiration or organismal respiration is meant. I doubt that it will be possible to create a hierarchy that will comfortably and correctly apply to both senses of this word with a simple tree and wonder whether it might not be best to limit the term that GO now has to cellular respiratory processes and consider adding new terms to describe the process of mechanically getting air to the alveoli in larger animals.

PD Dr. med. Peter N. Robinson, MSc.
Institut für Medizinische Genetik
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Augustenburger Platz 1
13353 Berlin
+4930 450566042
peter.robinson at
Von: gofriends-bounces at [gofriends-bounces at] im Auftrag von David Hill [dph at]
Gesendet: Montag, 17. Januar 2011 17:06
An: gofriends at
Betreff: Re: [Gofriends] Mistake in GO structure?

> Consider these two examples:
> (a) When you stop breathing (e.g., while diving), gaseous exchange
> continues, at least for some time.
> (b) In conditions with abnormal ventilation-perfusion ratio ('wasted
> blood' or 'wasted air', e.g., in inefficient inflow of blood into the
> pulmonary circulation due to obstruction of a major artery or shunts,
> or emphysema) gas exchange decreases while breathing increases
> (precisely to accommodate for decreased gas exchange).
Ah yes. I think I see your point.

How about 'respiratory system process' part_of 'respiratory gaseous
> In these examples, equating breathing with gas exchange is obvious
> nonsense.
> vQ
> _______________________________________________
> Gofriends mailing list
> Gofriends at
Gofriends mailing list
Gofriends at

More information about the go-friends mailing list