Textual definition update: GO_0035098 - ESC/E(Z) complex

[krchristie]

• Guidelines See http://wiki.geneontology.org/index.php/Guidelines_for_GO_textual_definitions#Use_genus-differentia_patterns_for_definitions More details at https://douroucouli.wordpress.com/2019/07/08/ontotip-write-simple-concise-clear-operational-textual-definitions/

• GO term ID and label for which you request a definition update GO_0035098 - ESC/E(Z) complex

• New proposed definition (genus-differentia pattern, plus additional information if needed) Current def: A multimeric protein complex that can methylate lysine-27 and lysine-9 residues of histone H3. In Drosophila the core subunits of the complex include ESC, E(Z), CAF1 (NURF-55) and SU(Z)12. In mammals the core subunits of the complex include EED, EZH2, SUZ12 and RBBP4. Revised def: A multimeric protein complex comprised of a catalytic lobe and a targeting lobe that can methylate lysine-27 and lysine-9 residues of histone H3. This bilobed structure is conserved in Drosophila and mammals. In mammals, the catalytic lobe is comprised of the methyltransferase EZH2, along with EED and the VEFS domain of SUZ12, while the targeting lobe is comprised of the N-terminal region of SUZ12, RBBP4/7, and various associated accessory proteins. The corresponding subunits in the Drosophila catalytic lobe are the methyltransferase E(z), along with Esc and the VEFS domain of Su(z)12, while the N-terminal region of Su(z)12 andp55 comprise the conserved core of the targeting lobe.

• Reference(s) PMID:33232890 - Glancy E, Ciferri C, Bracken AP. 2021. Structural basis for PRC2 engagement with chromatin. PMID:17107999 - Kim SY, 2006. Juxtaposed Polycomb complexes co-regulate vertebral identity. PMID:31123059 - Bracken AP, Brien GL, Verrijzer CP. 2019. Dangerous liaisons: interplay between SWI/SNF, NuRD, and Polycomb in chromatin regulation and cancer. GOC:krc

• Additional information

[raymond91125]

@krchristie Thanks for a nice summary of what is known about the complex. I wonder if it is beyond GO preference: a necessary and sufficient definition. Do you think such level of detail is required in this case to make it distinct from other complexes? @pgaudet Are extensive textual defs preferred for protein complexes? I guess a use case is for GO definition to be used as an up-to-date summary, similar to gene descriptions.

[pgaudet]

Discussion at the ontology editors' call: the guidelines are to keep the definitions minimal to describe the complex and make it clear for curators what the complex is so that they can annotate it confidently.

However the extra stuff may get out of date, and we would not be able to maintain it. Also it makes the definitions uneven across the different terms of the ontology, which is not sustainable with the resources we have.

So, we will stick to the guidelines here: https://wiki.geneontology.org/Protein_complexes#Textual_definition_for_protein-containing_complex_terms

If the current definition is not wrong, then we propose to just add the references you cite.

Thanks, Pascale