Search Mailing List Archives
Curator prediction of NOT kinase activity
val at sanger.ac.uk
Wed Mar 8 03:44:58 PST 2006
For these cases, longer term it would be great to have some way of
globally overriding IEA annotations when family members are considered
by experts not to contain key catalytic residues.....
Sandra Orchard wrote:
> Most kinase recognition patterns are HMMs which can only predict a
> domain but will not tell you if it is active or not. The kinases in
> these examples were hit by the HMMs. The only method which will give any
> indication of activity are ProSite patterns which specifically say a
> particular residue needs to be in a particulr position. The HMMs are
> correct in that these are part of the kinase family, but are inactive
> members of it, they are not false positives in that sense. This is true
> for many different classes of enzyme.
> And I do not remove enzyme InterPro2GO annotation just because a family
> contains a few inactive members - all the big enzyme families do and
> they can only really be recognised by manual annotation.
> Valerie Wood wrote:
> >Hi Emily,
> >A few comments which may be relevant:
> >Out of interest, which protein kinase family is this (i.e. which
> >Interpro domain).
> >Is it a family where some (but not all) members are protein kinases, in
> >which case the mapping should be removed?
> >Alternatively, if this appears to be a spurious hit, instead of adding a
> >NOT annotation, you can get spurious matches suppressed by Interpro as
> >false positives (I often do this for S. pombe).
> >Or, could it be a sequencing or gene predicition error?
> >Midori Harris wrote:
> >>I think there's no doubt whatsoever that this information should be
> >>captured. The question is what to put for reference and evidence. The best
> >>evidence code is probably TAS, although one could possibly also make a
> >>case for ISS (note that IC is restricted to inferences from other GO
> >>annotations, so isn't suitable).
> >>For a reference, one possibility is to add an item to the GO_REF
> >>collection; then there would be an ID to plug into the file.
> >>On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Emily Dimmer wrote:
> >>>One of our annotators, who is an expert on protein kinases, has looked
> >>>at the sequence of a putative protein kinase and from noticing a couple
> >>>of amino acids changes at its active site, has predicted that it does
> >>>not possess any kinase activity - she did not use any software and there
> >>>is no published work on this protein.
> >>>Do you think this type of annotation should be represented in GO (we
> >>>feel this annotation is of high quality and adds valuable information to
> >>>a protein which has not yet been characterized), and if so how should
> >>>this annotation be shown?
Valerie Wood Tel: 01223 494954
S. pombe Genome Project Fax: 01223 494919
The Sanger Institute email: val at sanger.ac.uk
Wellcome Trust Genome Campus http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Projects/S_pombe
More information about the go-discuss