Cacao

As Patelrh3 correctly states, Figure six shows the presence of Tal2009 at the tip of the tail, justifying the annotation I made and the GO term I used.

It is true that the Paper mainly focuses on the lytic function of the protein, which is another annotation I was planning on making. But, in my opinion, the experiments they performed do not yeild sufficient evidence for the function they say it has (cell-wall degradation for viral entry). The experiments confirm it is involved in the infection process and likely in lysis of the cell, but is it entry or is it exit? This was not clear enough for me. Additionally I could not find a fitting GO term for "lytic function".

As for this annotation, it does not matter what other experiments the did or whether the position of the protein was the focus of the study, in order for me to make that 'component' annotation.

Figure 6 is an electron micrograph in the journal is about the Tuc2009 particles after incubation. This figure is about an antibody binding to the end of the phage tail. The binding was to detect the presence of Tal2009 at the location.

Hi! The electron micrograph in Fig 6. of the journal is about Tucc2009 particles after incubation, which is in fact about an antibody specific antibody binding to the tip of the phage tail. But the entire article is about the particle encoding for tail degradation. You were right but you need to make sure you review the entire article in your notes. But it's ok, better luck next time sir/madam.

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

While the Tuc2009 is located at the tip of the tail, the paper mainly focuses on its cell wall degrading activity, and only shows it is on the viral tail tip to show where the protein is. Thus calling the protein a cell wall degrading lysin would be better, since thats what it is, and it just happens to be located at the tip as it is associated with the tail.