Open pgaudet opened 1 month ago
@pgaudet For annotation review, is the proposal to make dopamine receptor signaling pathway do_not_annotate or obsolete or something else? Thanks.
The PMID:25671228 figure above is about D2R whereas PMID:35688404 D1R. As indicated in PMID:28328745, G-protein independent arrestin signaling is quite varied regarding both upstream (many different 7TM receptors) and downstream (kinase and non-kinase).
Perhaps we could do: GO:0007166 cell surface signaling pathway ---GO:0007212 dopamine receptor signaling pathway (do_not_annotate) ------GO:0007191 adenylate cyclase-activating dopamine receptor signaling pathway (is_a G protein-coupled receptor signaling pathway) ------GO:0007195 adenylate cyclase-inhibiting dopamine receptor signaling pathway (is_a G protein-coupled receptor signaling pathway) ------GO:0060158 phospholipase C-activating dopamine receptor signaling pathway (is_a G protein-coupled receptor signaling pathway) ------GO:nnnnnnn beta-arrestin-dependent dopamine receptor signaling pathway (LD = 'dopamine receptor signaling pathway' and ('has part' some 'arrestin-family protein binding'))
This looks good to me. @hattrill ?
Following up on https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/26959
After discussion with @hattrill we agree that we should look into creating a new term under 'GO:0007166 cell surface signaling pathway', based on the paper @raymond91125 cited, PMID: 25671228, and also PMID:35688404.
One problem is that there are no general beta-arrestin or GSK3 signaling pathway terms in GO, so no 'module' we can reuse. Beta-arrestin a an adaptor that seem to activate may different proteins; can a a pathway in which the receptor binds beta-arrestin be defined unambiguously?
The mechanism of signaling is not clear: PMID: 25671228, mentions PP2, Akt and GSK3A, while
PMID:35688404 mentions Akt, PI3K, MAP kinases but not GSK3
Are these the same pathway?
The first step would be with it to review the direct annotations to GO:0007212 dopamine receptor signaling pathway (39 EXP) and see if they can be made more precise with existing terms, or if we already need a new term.
@raymond91105 can you please set up an annotation review?
Thanks, Pascale