GONUTS has been updated to MW1.31 Most things seem to be working but be sure to report problems.
Cacao
| GO:0004386 | helicase activity | PMID:26277776 | ECO:0000039 IDA: Inferred from Direct Assay | Molecular Function | Two recombinant proteins gp43-1(containing the gp43 N-terminal prim/pol domain and the C-terminal helicase domain) and gp43C (containing only the gp43 helicase domain) were isolated and analyzed to determine what role they play in helicase activity in bacteriophage BFK20 of Brevibacterium flavum. Experimenters utilized a fluorometric microplate assay to test helicase activity. Helicase activity was measured by labeling the donor strand with fluorophore FAM and labeling the acceptor strand with fluorophore BHQ1. The addition of ATP started the unwinding reaction. The protein concentration was varied to highlight the helicase activity of gp43-1 and gp43C. Controls excluded either the ATP, the protein, or both. The experiment was repeated several times and each run was 90 minutes. The fluorescence signal was recorded every 2 minutes and results were depicted in Figure 7. Results showed that gp43-1 could directly unravel a forked DNA substrate in vitro (but did not unwind a 3’ or 5’ ssDNA overhang); gp43C exhibited no helicase activity (despite having only the helicase domain of the recombinant protein gp43). In summary, gp43-1 exhibited helicase activity; moreover, gp43C exhibited no independent helicase activity and was indiscernible from the control. Based on this data, it was concluded that both domains are necessary for the full expression of helicase activity. | complete | ||
| This annotation made on page: 9CAUD:Q3V5F2 By: ASimpson (group Team Purple B 2019) on 2019-03-11 16:13:10 CDT. | ||||||||
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 10:45:18 CDT | No notes given. | Acceptable ✔ Protein ✔ Publication ✔ Qualifier ✔ Go term ✔ Evidence ✔ With/From ✔ Notes ✔ Unique/Original | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Assessment | DanielRenfro | 2019-03-27 09:49:39 CDT | This annotation has been flagged because it has been edited since last assessment
| Flagged | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Assessment | Ivanerill | 2019-03-25 12:35:26 CDT | The definition of the evidence seems off: "type of protein detection by fluorescence evidence", given that DNA is tagged. Consider replacing with ECO:0005801 or identifying an ECO term that more adequately captures the experimental setup. Note that the authors label that methods section as "NTPase activity assay", and they don't mention fluorescence therein. | Requires Changes ✔ Protein ✔ Publication ✔ Qualifier ✔ Go term ✗ Evidence ✔ With/From ✔ Notes ✔ Unique/Original | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Assessment | DanielRenfro | 2019-03-24 19:31:19 CDT | This annotation has been flagged because it has been edited since last assessment
| Flagged | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Assessment | 18.219.22.169 | 2019-03-14 08:44:03 CDT | Overall looks fairly good. The end part of the notes suggests other types of evidence that are not used in Fig. 7. Please outline clearly what evidence is used (you can then explain that this is supported by other lines of evidence, but this should be clearly delineated). The evidence term should be further specified to describe the type of IDA. 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 ✔ Go term ✗ Evidence ✗ Notes ✔ Unique/Original | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Public Assessment | Ivanerill | 2019-03-13 15:48:27 CDT | Overall looks fairly good. The end part of the notes suggests other types of evidence that are not used in Fig. 7. Please outline clearly what evidence is used (you can then explain that this is supported by other lines of evidence, but this should be clearly delineated). The evidence term should be further specified to describe the type of IDA. 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 ✔ Go term ✗ Evidence ✗ Notes ✔ Unique/Original | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Private Assessment | Ivanerill | 2019-03-13 09:27:01 CDT | You need to be an instructor to view these notes. | Requires Changes ✔ Protein ✔ Publication ✔ Go term ✗ Evidence ✗ Notes ✔ Unique/Original | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Private Assessment | Ivanerill | 2019-03-11 16:26:22 CDT | You need to be an instructor to view these notes. | Requires Changes ✔ Protein ✔ Publication ✔ Go term ✗ Evidence ✗ Notes |
