Open sjm41 opened 2 months ago
Just a question: if we broaden the def of GO:0018455 definition to include secondary alcohols/ketones, thenshould we also change the term name?
if we broaden the def of GO:0018455 definition to include secondary alcohols/ketones, then should we also change the term name?
I don't think so. Since the current GO:0018455 term name is "alcohol dehydrogenase [NAD(P)+] activity") rather than "primary alcohol dehydrogenase [NAD(P)+] activity", the implication is that it describes an activity that works with both primary and secondary alcohols. Similarly, the name of the "GO:0004022 alcohol dehydrogenase (NAD+) activity" child term, which is already defined as working on both primary and secondary alcohols, just says "alcohol dehydrogenase".
Hi @sjm41
My question about the changing the term label was about the aldo-keto versus alcohol distinction than about the primary/ secondary – intuitively an aldo-keto should not be is_a alcohol, although I did see what you wrote about these being the same reactions, in opposite directions.
Looking more closely, we could consider obsoleting aldo-keto reductase (NADPH) activity since it has no xrefs and seems to have been misused.
For example the protein name of https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/P42330/entry is Aldo-keto reductase family 1 member C3, and is annotated to EC:1.1.1.357, which is missing from GO.
So we could take advantage of this re-organization to get rid of aldo-keto reductase (NADPH) activity (GO:0004033) since that has no mappings. What do you think?
Thanks, Pascale
So we could take advantage of this re-organization to get rid of aldo-keto reductase (NADPH) activity (GO:0004033) since that has no mappings. What do you think?
Yes, that looks good to me. Though I see there are 23 direct EXP annotations to GO:0004033 that would need to be reviewed.
Obsoleting GO:0004033 (and doing the other tasks above) would lead to this simpler and more logical arrangement:
oxidoreductase activity, acting on the CH-OH group of donors, NAD or NADP as acceptor (GO:0016616) [EC:1.1.1.-]
|_alcohol dehydrogenase [NAD(P)+] activity (GO:0018455) [EC:1.1.1.71]
|_alcohol dehydrogenase (NAD+) activity (GO:0004022) [EC:1.1.1.1, RHEA:10740, RHEA:10736]
|_[SEVERAL CHILDREN]
|_alcohol dehydrogenase (NADP+) activity (GO:0008106) [EC:1.1.1.2, RHEA:15937]
|_carbonyl reductase (NADPH) activity (GO:0004090) [EC:1.1.1.184, RHEA:19257]
|_[SEVERAL OTHER CHILDREN]
@pgaudet Let me know if I should go ahead and make the other (non-obsoletion) changes proposed above.
I see there are 23 direct EXP annotations to GO:0004033
Reactome is responsible for 7 of those and it looks like all could be patched with terms in the proposed simplified hierarchy.
yes yes
I had this on my list to discuss with you tomorrow, but please go ahead and get started.
OK, I've done the 'easy' edits and we can discuss the final bits tomorrow.
We currently have this arrangement:
Note that all the reactions above are 'alcohol dehydrogenase' reactions - 'alcohol dehydrogenase' and 'Aldo/keto reductase' describe the same reaction though from opposite directions, and use either NAD or NADP as the acceptor.
Anyway, there are a few parentage and xref issues with the current hierarchy:
id: GO:0004022 name: alcohol dehydrogenase (NAD+) activity namespace: molecular_function def: "Catalysis of the reaction: an alcohol + NAD+ = an aldehyde or ketone + NADH + H+." [EC:1.1.1.1] xref: EC:1.1.1.1 xref: MetaCyc:ALCOHOL-DEHYDROG-GENERIC-RXN xref: RHEA:10740 xref: UM-BBD_reactionID:r0022 xref: UM-BBD_reactionID:r0603 is_a: GO:0018455 ! alcohol dehydrogenase [NAD(P)+] activity
EC 1.1.1.1 alcohol dehydrogenase a primary alcohol + NAD(+) = an aldehyde + H(+) + NADH a secondary alcohol + NAD(+) = a ketone + H(+) + NADH Mapped to: RHEA:10736 a primary alcohol + NAD+ = an aldehyde + H+ + NADH Mapped to: RHEA:10740 a secondary alcohol + NAD+ = a ketone + H+ + NADH
Tasks:
id: GO:0018455 name: alcohol dehydrogenase [NAD(P)+] activity namespace: molecular_function def: "Catalysis of the reaction: an alcohol + NAD(P)+ = an aldehyde + NAD(P)H + H+." [EC:1.1.1.71] xref: EC:1.1.1.71 xref: MetaCyc:ALCOHOL-DEHYDROGENASE-NADP+-RXN xref: RHEA:10736 xref: UM-BBD_reactionID:r0172 is_a: GO:0016616 ! oxidoreductase activity, acting on the CH-OH group of donors, NAD or NADP as acceptor
EC:1.1.1.71 alcohol dehydrogenase [NAD(P)(+)] a primary alcohol + NAD(+) = an aldehyde + H(+) + NADH a primary alcohol + NADP(+) = an aldehyde + H(+) + NADPH Reduces aliphatic aldehydes of chain length from C2 to C14, with greatest activity on C4, C6 and C8 aldehydes. Also reduces retinal to retinol.
Issue: This is a grouping term in GO, but it's definition (and EC xref) are more specific than its children - i.e. it is specific for primary alcohols/aldehydes, while its child (GO:0004022 - see above) also includes secondary alcohols/ketones. If we stick with the current definition, then we'll need to do some complicated/awkward rearranging of term relationships.
I think the simplest/better solution here is to:
Also:
id: GO:0004033 name: aldo-keto reductase (NADPH) activity namespace: molecular_function def: "Catalysis of the reaction: an alcohol + NADP+ = an aldehyde or a ketone + NADPH + H+." [GOC:ai] is_a: GO:0016616 ! oxidoreductase activity, acting on the CH-OH group of donors, NAD or NADP as acceptor property_value: term_tracker_item "https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/27180" xsd:anyURI
Tasks:
id: GO:0008106 name: alcohol dehydrogenase (NADP+) activity namespace: molecular_function def: "Catalysis of the reaction: an alcohol + NADP+ = an aldehyde + NADPH + H+." [EC:1.1.1.2] xref: EC:1.1.1.2 xref: MetaCyc:ALCOHOL-DEHYDROGENASE-NADPORNOP+-RXN xref: RHEA:15937 is_a: GO:0004033 ! aldo-keto reductase (NADPH) activity property_value: term_tracker_item "https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/28183" xsd:anyURI
EC:1.1.1.2 alcohol dehydrogenase (NADP(+)) a primary alcohol + NADP(+) = an aldehyde + H(+) + NADPH Some members of this group oxidize only primary alcohols; others act also on secondary alcohols.
If we implement the above, the hierarchy becomes:
What do you think @pgaudet ?