Cacao

While you are right in pointing out an error on my part, I disagree with your proposed alteration. The relevant figures are actually fig 2 and fig 7a, as the latter shows a mutation in a crucial cysteine residue resulted in significant loss of function for the mutant. The relevant evidence code should also be IMP with addition of fig 7a. Fig 2 is mostly to indicate endopeptidase activity, with fig 7a showing the cysteine aspect. However, peptidoglycan catabolic process is not an appropriate alteration. I also annotated peptidoglycan turnover to the same protein, which I feel is a better annotation in this case. Peptidoglycan turnover is the continual breakdown and regeneration of peptidoglycan that is constantly occurring, and Figures 5 & 6 show this protein is clearly necessary for normal growth (as referenced in notes of that annotation), and the turnover is mediated by its activity as an endopeptidase. Annotating peptidoglycan catabolism is therefore not as specific and relevant as this pre-existing annotation.

Figure 2 does not specifically depict cysteine-type endopeptidase activity. The authors are investigating Spr murein (peptidoglycan) metabolism by creating muropeptides to see, specifically, which cross-links Spr cleaves. A better GO term could be GO:0009253, since it describes murein (peptidoglycan) catabolism by Spr.