GONUTS has been updated to MW1.31 Most things seem to be working but be sure to report problems.
Cacao
| Contributes to | GO:0098856 | intestinal lipid absorption | PMID:30837651 | ECO:0001175 IMP: Inferred from Mutant Phenotype | Biological Process | The authors generated knockout mice with a deletion in the dennd5b gene (figure 1A). They examined the phenotype of the knockout mice and noted that fasted mice had a larger, more distended small intestine than wild-type (figure 2A, 2B), as well as massive lipid accumulation compared to wild-type (figures 2D and 2E). In addition, plasma triglyceride levels were measured in both knockout and wild-type mice, and the dennd5b knockout mice were shown to have significantly lower levels of both triglycerides and free fatty acids in their blood plasma (figure 2C) than wild-type controls. Overall, the evidence indicates that lack of a functioning dennd5b gene severely impairs the intestinal lipid absorption abilities of mice. | complete | |
| This annotation made on page: MOUSE:DEN5B By: KAtanasoff (group Team Blue A 2019) on 2019-03-09 15:10:17 CST. | ||||||||
You must be logged in to challenge this annotation.
| Entry Type | Challenging User,Group | Time/Date | Challenge Reason | Points/Assessment | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Assessment | Ivanerill | 2019-03-27 09:58:52 CDT | No notes given. | Acceptable ✔ Protein ✔ Publication ✔ Qualifier ✔ Go term ✔ Evidence ✔ With/From ✔ Notes ✔ Unique/Original | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Assessment | DanielRenfro | 2019-03-25 17:45:45 CDT | This annotation has been flagged because it has been edited since last assessment
| Flagged | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Assessment | DanielRenfro | 2019-03-25 17:39:00 CDT | This annotation has been flagged because it has been edited since last assessment
| Flagged | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Assessment | Ivanerill | 2019-03-25 12:05:21 CDT | Don't put in a qualifier. Make clear in the note which experiment from Fig. 2 you are basing the annotation on. The authors don't seem to reach the same conclusion you do. They only talk about triacylglyceride (TG) absorption. See if there are alternative terms you can use to further specify this. Justify either way in the notes. For evidence, is transmission electron microscopy the thing that allows them to make the connection between the gene and TG absorption? Again, read the beginning of your notes. | Requires Changes ✔ Protein ✔ Publication ✗ Qualifier ✗ Go term ✗ Evidence ✔ With/From ✗ Notes ✔ Unique/Original | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Assessment | DanielRenfro | 2019-03-25 11:24:26 CDT | This annotation has been flagged because it has been edited since last assessment
| Flagged | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Assessment | DanielRenfro | 2019-03-25 11:22:42 CDT | This annotation has been flagged because it has been edited since last assessment
| Flagged | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Assessment | Ivanerill | 2019-03-24 16:02:42 CDT | See http://geneontology.org/docs/go-annotations/ for the use of Contribute to qualifier. Not use in Biological Process. I don't see any support for this protein being involved in GO:0042632 "cholesterol homeostasis" in the paper, nor do the authors state so. And you don't indicate this in the note, so it is probably not the right GO term? Is "gel-filtration" the evidence that is being use to prove that the gene is involved in cholesterol homeostasis (or whatever it is)? That is, how do the authors establish the causal link between the gene and the effect? Read the beginning of your notes. And when you make your case, stay focused. Your notes mention several different experiments from the same figure. You need to identify which is the experiment that establishes your annotation. You can then refer to the rest as additional support, but not as the rationale for your annotation. | Requires Changes ✔ Protein ✔ Publication ✗ Qualifier ✗ Go term ✗ Evidence ✔ With/From ✗ Notes ✔ Unique/Original | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Assessment | DanielRenfro | 2019-03-24 10:26:21 CDT | This annotation has been flagged because it has been edited since last assessment
| Flagged | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Assessment | Ivanerill | 2019-03-13 09:20:31 CDT | Need to focus on a figure (i.e. experiment) that supports a specific assertion, and make that the GO and the ECO. Not summarize the whole paper. As it is, it is impossible to judge what evidence is being used, where and to show what. Eukaryotic annotation is NOT allowed from now on in Phage Hunters CACAO. 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 ✗ Notes ✗ Unique/Original | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Private Assessment | Ivanerill | 2019-03-09 16:07:22 CST | You need to be an instructor to view these notes. | Requires Changes ✗ Protein ✔ Publication ✔ Qualifier ✗ Go term ✗ Evidence ✗ Notes ✗ Unique/Original |
