Open ValWood opened 2 years ago
Working on this now @ValWood
Thoughts with an initial look: Seems like there are some dubious annotations that need cleaned up (e.g., conflicts between pombase annotations vs. other databases), may have some unique branches of canonical pathways missing per KEGG (some enzymatic nodes missing from modules, etc.). STRING network (settings: no text-mining, no co-occurrence, no co-expression; high confidence; expanded ~5 times; permalink to be added) reflects some of these lapses in that nodes not usually expected to be linked (largely of other aa metabolic pathways) are in fact linked. Some of this, I suspect, are due to localizations in the mitochondria, trafficking to/from mitochondria, and how this may have influenced experimental data. Published data linked from GO-annotated genes (i.e., branched-chain amino acid metabolism) seems to indicate loose associations with the proteosome, mitochondrial DNA maintenance, etc., all things that somewhat add to the aforementioned suspicions regarding challenges posed by the localization and types of observations made in support of annotations.
Writing up a synthesis in notes for clean contributions here in the issue page. Will follow up soon.
STRING network permalink: https://version-11-5.string-db.org/cgi/network?networkId=bQVWjyPsQ0YA
I suspect the annotations https://www.yeastgenome.org/locus/S000004347/go linking ILV5 to genome maintenance are incorect/indirecy (these are phenotypes, not processes, it is unlikely the ILV 5 has a direct role in mitochondrial genome maintenance). Most likely defects cause elevated ROS which affects mitochondrial DNA. Over time most annotations to "mitochondrial genome maintenance" have been removed because they describe phenotypes.
was partly dealt with by this ticket, but still some issues remain https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/18417
Similarly for the ubiquitin system. There are 4 annotations. One worm and 3 candida. The worm one is definitely an indirect phenotype caused by the downstream affects of increased ROS/stress. I have queried the worm one in Protein2GO.
The connection between leu1 and atg 1 is only from genetic interactions. The connection is that amino acid levels are sensors for growth and autophagy via the TOR pathway. This is well-known, but is much higher than "amino acid biosynthesis"
i.e When TORC1 signalling is active Gene expression is activated Cells proliferate (growth) Catabolism (autophagy ) inhibited
When TORC1 signalling is inhibited (by amino acid stress) -proliferation (growth slows, cells divide shorter) -autophagy is positively regulated
String is just picking up genetic manipulation used by researchers to modulate TORC signalling (disturb amino acid biosynthesis) to study TOR outputs (autophagy).
We would not connect amino acid biosynthesis and autophagy directly in GO because they are completely separate modules that affect each other by a very long chain of intermediate events.
The effects of TOR signalling are very broad https://www.pombase.org/reference/PMID:34296454 (at least 584 targets), so it does't make sense to make connections between things way upstream and downstream).
this is a nice general summary of the broader process: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1097276518309341
but we have these signalling modules largely curated already
This is TORC signalling http://www.esyn.org/builder.php?projectid=1396&type=Graph
This is one of the problems with STRING for functional inference, it connects genetic interactions and some are very long-range, it only means that you see a different phenotype from the 2 mutants than for any individually. Just because 2 mutants have a stronger/ different phenotype does not make them closely functionally connected.
STRING takes us back to the hairball we are trying to tease apart. It might be useful if nothing is known, but these are well known, but separable pathways and connections (for example TOR signalling is completely merged into autophagy the downstream process that is controlled)
Just finished a minor batch of "teasing" (ha), see below (beginning to collect together important findings, summaries); what are your thoughts on this annotation: https://www.pombase.org/term/GO:0009316
According to KEGG, LeuC/LeuD reactions are not present in S. pombe as they appear in C5-branched dibasic acid metabolism (https://www.kegg.jp/pathway/spo00660+SPBC1A4.02c)
<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
RE: Transport Restrictions Based on Annotated Transporter Genes
Simplified:
reviewed here for fission yeast https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9041340/ useful for modelling the pathway quickly. I have captured already most of the 'causal model' in figure 4.