Cacao

The notes section should include more detail. For example, include more from your reference on how the gene was inferred from a Direct Assay.

There is no specific gene from Bacillus phage Evoli listed as the sequence associated with the protein Thymidylate Synthase. The annotation lists Inferred from Direct Assay as evidence, however, the pubmed article linked does not mention anything about Thymidylate Synthase in Bacillus phage Evoli. It talks about the molecular and biological function of Thymidylate Synthase and knowledge about the enzyme through assays with different bacteria but it makes no connections to Evoli or any specific part of Evoli's genome associated with the enzyme. Furhtermore, the notes make no mention of how the paper provides evidence of Thymidykate Synthase in Evoli.

This reference only explain the activities of thymidylate synthase in biological processes but was not proved by direct assay to prove their functions and mechanisms.

Hi Sir, haven't written anything abut what the source is about. It is about the catalytic mechanism and structure of thymidylate synthase. All you have said is that is that it is seeded by Uniprot. There are plenty of other things that are seeded by Uniprot. If you would have given an explanation about. Thymidylate synthase, as an enzyme "catalyzes the reductive methylation of dUMP. Even if you would've summarized the article I'd have given you the benefit of the doubt. You have an inaccurate evidence code, you should've incorporated proper evidence with your notes. But don't worry, you seem like a nice guy so you're fine.

You have been stumped by the Trump. (Making Annotations Great Again)

Gave no explanation in notes about how they experimentally found out about the function of the protein

This should be a direct annotation on the species page that the scientists used in the PubMed paper and then make another transfer annotation. Please provide a more comprehensive explanation in the Notes section.