#9992 NTR:stress-induced mitochondrial fusion

Uniprot
closed-fixed
5
2013-02-19
2013-02-14
Lionel Breuza
No

Dear GO editors,

as described in PubMed:19360003, the product of STOML2 and other genes are required for stress-induced mitochondrial fusion/hyperfusion.
I wanted to annotate them with 2 GO terms GO:0033554 cellular response to stress and mitochondrial fusion GO:0008053. However, I have noticed the following comment in the first term definition:
"Note that this term is in the subset of terms that should not be used for direct gene product annotation. Annotations to this term will be removed during annotation QC"

I thus wonder if one should create a GO term "induced mitochondrial fusion/hyperfusion" which seems to me too specific and directly annotate it to that gene. Or use a combination of the terms mentioned before.

What would you suggest?
Thanks,
Lionel.

Discussion

    • assigned_to: nobody --> paolaroncaglia
     
    • status: open --> closed-accepted
     
  • Dear Lionel,

    I've added your new term as follows:

    id: GO:1990046
    name: stress-induced mitochondrial fusion
    namespace: biological_process
    def: "Merging of two or more mitochondria within a cell to form a single compartment, as a result of a disturbance in cellular homeostasis." [GOC:lb, PMID:19360003]
    synonym: "mitochondrial fusion in response to stress" RELATED []
    synonym: "SIMH" NARROW []
    synonym: "stress-induced mitochondrial hyperfusion" NARROW []
    is_a: GO:0008053 ! mitochondrial fusion
    is_a: GO:0033554 ! cellular response to stress

    Thanks,
    Paola

     
  • Valerie Wood
    Valerie Wood
    2013-02-17

    • status: closed-accepted --> open-accepted
     
  • Valerie Wood
    Valerie Wood
    2013-02-17

    Hi,
    related to this ticket. we show these commnents in the community curation tool. The message
    "Note that this term is in the subset of terms that should not be used for direct gene product annotation. Annotations to this term will be removed during annotation QC"
    is a little alarming (esp for community curators who may not appreciate what direct means in this context)), and it does not suggest what to do instead.

    Could the comments on terms which are not meant to be used in direct annotation be extended?

    Perhaps
    Note that this term should not be used for direct gene product annotation.
    Instead, select a child term or, if no appropriate child term exists, please request a new term.
    Annotations to this term will be removed during annotation QC

    Also not that direct annotations are not yet removed, at the moment they issue a soft warning, but I guess the plan is to remove them eventually?

    val

     
  • Hi Val,

    That sounds reasonable. I'll run this by Rachael and Jane too, so they may comment about annotation removal strategy too.

    Thanks,
    Paola.

     
  • Jane Lomax
    Jane Lomax
    2013-02-19

    I agree the wording is quite harsh, Val! And it's also not true - I'm not sure we've even agreed yet what will happen with these annotations. It may just stay as a soft-check - did we make a decision, Rachael?

    Either way, we should definitely add the additional sentence Val suggests:

    "Instead, select a child term or, if no appropriate child term exists, please request a new term."

    and I'd also suggest changing the final sentence to:

    "Direct annotations to this term may be amended during annotation QC."

    because sometimes we might want to just automatically change annotations to these terms e.g. the x-part terms.

     
  • Jane Lomax
    Jane Lomax
    2013-02-19

    • status: open-accepted --> closed-fixed
     
  • Jane Lomax
    Jane Lomax
    2013-02-19

    Comments changed.