Thread:Initial review (1)
From WikiPathways
Viewing a history listing.
| 13:42, 7 September 2023 | Egonw (Talk | contribs) | New reply created | |
| 11:19, 5 September 2023 | Egonw (Talk | contribs) | New reply created | |
| 11:51, 31 August 2023 | Mkutmon (Talk | contribs) | Comment text edited | |
| 11:50, 31 August 2023 | Mkutmon (Talk | contribs) | New thread created |
There have been no changes to this discussion for at least 30 days. If it is concluded, you may want to write a summary.
After quickly reviewing your pathway, it looks well annotated and most of the lines are connected! Well done!
I have a couple of small questions:
1. It seems your pathway contains four independent pathways. Wouldn't it make sense to split them into four pathway models on WikiPathways? This might increase their usability in downstream analyses.
2. I saw that you used fill color to indicate expression changes. We usually advise against adding actual expression data in the pathway models. That is usually done downstream in the data overlay in PathVisio or Cytoscape. By purely describing the biological processes, the data from any experimental dataset can then be visualized on the pathways in downstream analyses, thereby increasing the reusability of the pathway.
3. I saw an issue with the encoding of three references (25, 30, 106). Which operating systems are you using? Are you using the new installers for PathVisio?
