exocyst assembly

[gocentral]

I'd like to add a term describing the assembly of the exocyst, a protein complex peripherally associated with the plasma membrane that determines where secretory vesicles dock and fuse (GO: 0000145). First, however, I'd like to suggest that the definition of GO:0000145 be added to; perhaps with an indication of the yeast and mammalian exocyst complex containing 8 proteins. Here's something from a cell review that might be appended to the definition: "The exocyst is a conserved eight-subunit complex involved in the docking of exocytic vesicles."

Thus, the def for the proposed term, exocyst assembly, might be the assembly of eight polypeptides of the exocyst complex.

proposed parent GO:0006887, exocytosis; however, would then, I think, need to put mostl current children of 6887 as children to new term?

It's one of those terms that seems to be mentioned all over the literature, but somehow hasn't worked its way into even very recent textbooks.

However, the assembly term is required because the assembly is regulated by several small GTPases of the Rab and Rho families.

If this seems reasonable, I can impliment.

Reported by: hdrabkin

Original Ticket: "geneontology/ontology-requests/1996":https://sourceforge.net/p/geneontology/ontology-requests/1996

[gocentral]

Logged In: YES user_id=436423

Looks OK, but I don't understand why the children of 6887 would have to move ... ?

m

Original comment by: mah11

[gocentral]

Logged In: YES user_id=546388

Midori: yes.. I think I was thinking of something else that eludes me at the moment. If anything, it might also need to be a part of the different other types of exocytosis.

Original comment by: hdrabkin

[gocentral]

Logged In: YES user_id=439222

Hi Harold

I recently curated info for the exocyst in yeast here at SGD so i have a little bit of this info still in my head. Your proposal sounds pretty good to me but I would definitly not say, in a definitive way, that the exocyst contains eight proteins. Exo84 was discovered recently and there may be more out there. So maybe the definition for GO:145 could be written thusly: Protein complex peripherally associated with the plasma membrane that determines where secretory vesicles dock and fuse. At least eight complex components are conserved between yeast and mammals.

...or maybe there is a standard syntax to deal with this scenario where the sum components of a complex may or may not have been identified?

Making the exocyst assembly a child of exocytosis sounds ok, but I wonder if it would be better as a child of both 'vesicle targeting' as well as 'vesicle docking during exocytosis'. In the yeast literature these are the critical things the exocyst is mediating in exocytosis, so for yeast, these parents would be just fine.

Chandra

Original comment by: clt4

[gocentral]

Logged In: YES user_id=546388

Hi Chandra Your suggestions seem reasonable to me. I just wanted some mention somewhere about the subunits. From what I read, the conservation of the 8 seems pretty sound, but you are right that someone could discover another!! I think the vesicle docking parent is also a good idea, as there was constant mention of it in the context of the yeast to mammal comparisons.

If we have no other comments, then I can impliment the term creation and assign parents this week. harold (aka hurdil)

Original comment by: hdrabkin

[gocentral]

Logged In: YES user_id=451873

Don't forget to also make the new term an is_a child of 'protein complex assembly ; GO:0006461'!

Jane

Original comment by: jl242

[gocentral]

Logged In: YES user_id=546388

Done; added GO:0001927 exocyst assembly. Isa's to protein complex assembly, and vesicle docking, and part of to vesicle targeting. Regulation terms to follow

Original comment by: hdrabkin

[gocentral]

• status: open --> closed

Original comment by: hdrabkin

[gocentral]

Logged In: YES user_id=546388

regulation terms added and exocyst def appended as suggested. I'll close this one out.

Original comment by: hdrabkin

[gocentral]

• assigned_to: nobody --> hjdrabkin

Original comment by: hdrabkin