GONUTS has been updated to MW1.31 Most things seem to be working but be sure to report problems.
Cacao
| GO:0007012 | actin cytoskeleton reorganization | PMID:30845261 | ECO:0005598 IMP: Inferred from Mutant Phenotype | Biological Process | The CNF1 protein in E.coli induces changes in the organization of the actin cytoskeleton, which prevents cytoadherence and induces the detachment of pRBCs from endothelial mono-layers. This may be used in preventing malaria parasite cytoadherence. | complete | ||
| This annotation made on page: ECOLX:A0A1W5T566 By: VMahaney (group Team Red A 2019) on 2019-03-08 18:42:46 CST. | ||||||||
You must be logged in to challenge this annotation.
| Entry Type | Challenging User,Group | Time/Date | Challenge Reason | Points/Assessment | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Assessment | Ivanerill | 2019-03-24 15:48:06 CDT | Good job! | Acceptable ✔ Protein ✔ Publication ✔ Qualifier ✔ Go term ✔ Evidence ✔ With/From ✔ Notes ✔ Unique/Original | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Assessment | DanielRenfro | 2019-03-24 09:14:40 CDT | This annotation has been flagged because it has been edited since last assessment
| Flagged | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Assessment | Ivanerill | 2019-03-13 09:18:26 CDT | Nice blurb, but does not say anything about the experimental setup/rationale in the paper that allows the authors to draw such conclusion. This should be a description of the experimental process supporting the annotation, not of the paper. One presumes you are talking about figure 4, where a mutant toxin is shown to have effects on endothelial cell actin cytoskeleton. If so, something more specific than mutant phenotype could be used. The GO is wrong too, since CNF1 "induces" changes in the cytoskeleton and, as a bacterial protein, it may be hard to argue that it is "involved" in the reorganization, which is a BP of the endothelial cell. Please use the cross-linked evidence terms from ECO (i.e. those that end in "used in manual assertion" or "used in automatic assertion") Most instances of evidence you will come across will be of type "used in manual assertion". Terms with "used in automatic assertion" imply that the authors did not make a conscious effort to analyze the results of an experiment, letting an algorithm make the call. For instance, if somebody were to use BLAST to determine that a bunch of proteins are homologous (and hence have the same function as the query) and they do not assess the BLAST results in any way (just accept whatever BLAST returns as significant given a preestablished threshold) that could be thought of as an "automatic assertion". | Requires Changes ✔ Protein ✔ Publication ✔ Qualifier ✗ Go term ✗ Evidence ✔ With/From ✗ Notes ✔ Unique/Original | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Private Assessment | Ivanerill | 2019-03-09 16:00:17 CST | You need to be an instructor to view these notes. | Requires Changes ✔ Protein ✔ Publication ✔ Qualifier ✗ Go term ✗ Evidence ✔ With/From ✗ Notes ✔ Unique/Original |
