GONUTS has been updated to MW1.31 Most things seem to be working but be sure to report problems.
Cacao
| GO:0019012 | virion | PMID:15837419 | IDA: Inferred from Direct Assay | C | ||||
| This annotation made on page: BPPH2:CAPSD By: Stuitjj (group Team X-wing@Alliciousness) on 2017-04-09 18:52:40 CDT. | ||||||||
You must be logged in to challenge this annotation.
| Entry Type | Challenging User,Group | Time/Date | Challenge Reason | Points/Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Challenge | Alqaffasaa, Team Trypto-pham | 2017-04-16 18:55:39 CDT | please reconsider the evidence code. this is not IDA per say. | None, yet. |
| Challenge | Syedsa, Team Viridae | 2017-04-10 12:07:34 CDT | To strengthen this annotation, information on the atomic structure of the trimeric coil fitting into the cryo-EM density should be included | None, yet. |
| Public Assessment | AAJohnson | 2017-05-09 12:23:26 CDT | What in this figure (or the methods used to develop the figure) tell you that go term "Virion" is appropriate vs. "capsid"? I chose this ancestor chart for these terms since the paper says this virus uses T=3 arrangement: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/QuickGO/GTerm?id=GO:0039617#term=ancchart Does the fiber attachment offer support for your GO term? Just wondering why you chose this figure from the paper, and described BIG2 and fiber attachment to decide this is virion. I unerstand that together they make the virion, but you're annotating one of the proteins and you have to make sure the data is directly related to the GO term you chose, and the GO term is as specific as possible. Your notes should include clear description of phi29 capsid being composed of two domains, one is HK-97-like, and the other is BIG2 (which isn't present in HK97), so we know how BIG2 domain is involved. There is some text in the paper that you can use to support your notes. | Requires Changes ✔ Protein ✔ Publication ✔ Qualifier ✔ With/From ✗ Notes |
