# Antibodies tractability pipe and results issues **URL:** \ **Category:** Community Feedback\ **Created:** [14 September 2021 09:48 UTC](https://community.opentargets.org/t/antibodies-tractability-pipe-and-results-issues/349 "2021-09-14T09:48:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 6
**Author:** ![ochoa](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/community.opentargets.org/ochoa/32/189_2.png) [@ochoa](https://community.opentargets.org/u/ochoa)\ **Post date:** [22 April 2022 14:19 UTC](https://community.opentargets.org/t/antibodies-tractability-pipe-and-results-issues/349/6 "2022-04-22T14:19:18Z")
This is the logic the team who developed the tractability pipeline used. I would agree with this formula, based on how the 2 resources are defined. Gene Ontology would not produce an assessment of the most likely subcellular location of a protein. It just keeps adding annotations based on the availability of evidence. In BRCA1 for example, you can find Gene ontology evidence pointing to the cytoplasm as a cellular component (an unlikely location). ![Screenshot 2022-04-22 at 15.14.18](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/uploads/opentargets/original/1X/42191be3d55d615c5f9711ea3b844106dde3b07b.png) Uniprot would provide instead a curated assessment through manual inspection of the evidence that would discard the membrane as a likely location for BRCA1: ![Screenshot 2022-04-22 at 15.16.32](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/uploads/opentargets/original/1X/329be540da5dc94255afba50eddb61bc99f8a405.png) More info in the [BRCA1 profile page](https://platform.opentargets.org/target/ENSG00000012048) --- _[View the full topic](https://community.opentargets.org/t/antibodies-tractability-pipe-and-results-issues/349)._