Representation of an unknown enabler in Reactome and GO-CAM about pathways2go HOT 6 OPEN

Interesting. In other places in the imports, I've seen enablers that are labeled something like 'unknown ubiquitin ligase'.

from pathways2go.

@ukemi at least that restricts the possibilities! Just having 'protein' as enabler, seems to me, would be most accurately interpreted as "any protein will do".

from pathways2go.

But to restrict in a consistent way, we need an ontology structure and curators and users trained in its use. It's probably easier to train curators and users to understand that "unknown protein" means just that: the activity has an enabler whose identity has not yet been discovered, and not that anything can enable it.

from pathways2go.

Yes, and in the OWL instance world I believe that having protein there means some protein, not all proteins.

from pathways2go.

@deustp01 If a reaction uses a protein that has isoforms, but you don't know which specific isoform is being used, do you annotate to the generic protein identifier?

from pathways2go.

@ukemi by default we always annotate to the canonical / default isoform specified by UniProt unless there is experimental evidence that specifies the use of a different isoform so, yes, in effect we are annotating to the generic identifier because we haven't really examined the possibility of isoform usage.

This is also our rationale for not routinely making sets of all of the isoforms of a UniProt that should be able to enable a particular function and using that set, instead of a single EWAS instance corresponding to the canonical UniProt isoform as the enabler. There is also a biology issue here like the one for paralogs. We assume that all paralogs / all isoforms are equally competent enablers, by default ignoring differences in tissue- or state-specific expression of these variant form that might be pointing to real differences in function (as in the case of the sets of glycolytic enzymes where all set members have the same catalytic activity but are expressed in different tissues and subject to different regulators of their activity).

This leads to problems when UniProt re-edits a SwissProt entry to change the isoform that is the canonical / default one - then our numbering of positions in the protein sequence, e.g. to indicate start and end coordinates and coordinates of specific modified residues can be thrown off. @nataled 's QA tests have enabled us to clean up (almost) all of the 20-year legacy mess caused by these UniProt - Reactome branchings, and we have just introduced a new QA check whereby any change in the checksum of a UniProt entry (which should be triggered by any of these changes in the identity of the canonical sequence) causes all EWASs / proteoforms that refer to the changed UniProt to be flagged for manual review.

from pathways2go.