--- old+++ new@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@-S. pombe exo1 (exonuclease) has a mapping to microtubule. I can't find any evidence for this, could you take a look and remove if appropriate.+S. pombe exo2 (exonuclease) has a mapping to microtubule. I can't find any evidence for this, could you take a look and remove if appropriate.
Thanks
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Again, the kW was added by similarity to S. cerevisiae ortholog (P22147).
See: PubMed:7720696;
"A role of Sep1 (= Kem1, Xrn1) as a microtubule-associated protein in Saccharomyces cerevisiae."
...Biochemical analysis of the purified Sep1 protein demonstrates its ability to promote the polymerization of procine brain and authentic S.cerevisiae tubulin into flexible microtubules in vitro. Furthermore, Sep1 co-sediments with these microtubules in sucrose cushion centrifugation. Genetic analysis of double mutant strains containing a mutation in SEP1 and in one of the genes coding for alpha- or beta-tubulin further suggests interaction between Sep1 and microtubules. Taken together these three lines of evidence constitute compelling evidence for a role of Sep1 as an accessory protein in microtubule function in the yeast S.cerevisiae.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Marc.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hmm all three lines of evidence seem a bit weak (2 using exogenous system in vitro), considering this has never been followed up it could easily be indirect.
SGD have made no GO annotation to this process, so i am checking with them why this is. Probably it is not considered to be a physiological role. No such role has been reported in fission yeast despite a large number of papers (interactions/location and phenotypes)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I understand. I think we do not have exactly the same level of annotation. It is always difficult to see how far to go. In the case of this exonuclease, we have a great part of functional annotation dedicated to the regulation of microtubules, so we will keep this information in our function description. But what I could do, would be to remove the KW to cancel the mapping to the Go term.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Lets see what SGD say.
In this particular case I suspect the annotations may be a bit of a red herring. It is odd that they only come up in a single paper, and are not followed up by any of the many other publication on these genes. Or supported by in vivo studies, phenotypes etc.
I'm not convinced that they have any role in the regulation of microtubules...
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Diff:
Sent to UniProt
Again, the kW was added by similarity to S. cerevisiae ortholog (P22147).
See: PubMed:7720696;
"A role of Sep1 (= Kem1, Xrn1) as a microtubule-associated protein in Saccharomyces cerevisiae."
...Biochemical analysis of the purified Sep1 protein demonstrates its ability to promote the polymerization of procine brain and authentic S.cerevisiae tubulin into flexible microtubules in vitro. Furthermore, Sep1 co-sediments with these microtubules in sucrose cushion centrifugation. Genetic analysis of double mutant strains containing a mutation in SEP1 and in one of the genes coding for alpha- or beta-tubulin further suggests interaction between Sep1 and microtubules. Taken together these three lines of evidence constitute compelling evidence for a role of Sep1 as an accessory protein in microtubule function in the yeast S.cerevisiae.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Marc.
Hmm all three lines of evidence seem a bit weak (2 using exogenous system in vitro), considering this has never been followed up it could easily be indirect.
SGD have made no GO annotation to this process, so i am checking with them why this is. Probably it is not considered to be a physiological role. No such role has been reported in fission yeast despite a large number of papers (interactions/location and phenotypes)
I understand. I think we do not have exactly the same level of annotation. It is always difficult to see how far to go. In the case of this exonuclease, we have a great part of functional annotation dedicated to the regulation of microtubules, so we will keep this information in our function description. But what I could do, would be to remove the KW to cancel the mapping to the Go term.
Lets see what SGD say.
In this particular case I suspect the annotations may be a bit of a red herring. It is odd that they only come up in a single paper, and are not followed up by any of the many other publication on these genes. Or supported by in vivo studies, phenotypes etc.
I'm not convinced that they have any role in the regulation of microtubules...
Okay. Let me know when you'll have news from SGD.
It is not clear that XRN1 has much to do with microtubules. This mapping should be removed.
Rama