Skip to content

Based on my review of the GO-CAM model and the relevant documentation, I'll now provide a detailed assessment of the model "gomodel:5fb9cc0600000627" titled "Regulation of macrophage differntiation via irf2bp2b, cebpa, spi1b (D. rerio)":

GO-CAM Review: Regulation of macrophage differentiation via irf2bp2b, cebpa, spi1b (D. rerio)

Model ID: gomodel:5fb9cc0600000627

Summary

This model represents the regulation of macrophage differentiation in zebrafish (Danio rerio), focusing on the roles of three transcription factors: cebpa, irf2bp2b, and spi1b. The model describes how these transcription factors interact to regulate macrophage differentiation through their transcriptional regulatory activities.

Overview of Biological Process

Based on the model and literature, irf2bp2b (interferon regulatory factor 2 binding protein 2b) serves as a negative regulator of macrophage differentiation. The model represents how cebpa (CCAAT enhancer binding protein alpha) positively regulates irf2bp2b, which in turn negatively regulates the differentiation of macrophages involving spi1b.

Technical Assessment

Strengths:

  1. Appropriate molecular functions: The model correctly uses GO:0000978 (RNA polymerase II cis-regulatory region sequence-specific DNA binding) and the specific transcription factor activities (GO:0001228 and GO:0001227) for the transcription factors.

  2. Evidence support: Evidence codes are appropriately used with the primary reference PMID:31123027.

  3. Structure: The model follows the causal flow from cebpa to irf2bp2b to the regulation of macrophage differentiation.

Issues and Recommendations:

  1. Incomplete gene function annotation:
  2. spi1b (ZFIN:ZDB-GENE-980526-164) is annotated with GO:0003674 (molecular_function), which is a root term indicating that the specific molecular function is unknown. Based on the literature, spi1b is a known transcription factor involved in macrophage differentiation and should be annotated with a more specific transcription factor activity term.

Recommendation: Update the molecular function of spi1b to either GO:0001228 (DNA-binding transcription activator activity) or a more specific term based on the literature evidence.

  1. Causal connection issues:
  2. The model shows cebpa activity being part_of (BFO:0000050) its downstream activity rather than causally regulating it. According to GO-CAM guidelines for transcription factors, the causal relation should be "indirectly positively regulates" or "indirectly negatively regulates."

Recommendation: Change the relation from BFO:0000050 (part_of) to RO:0002407 (indirectly positively regulates) between cebpa's DNA binding and its downstream transcription activity.

  1. Missing cellular location:
  2. According to the transcription factor annotation guidelines, these activities should include "occurs in" nucleus (GO:0005634), which is missing from the model.

Recommendation: Add the cellular location "nucleus" to each transcription factor activity.

  1. Incomplete representation of spi1b:
  2. The role of spi1b in macrophage differentiation is not fully represented in the model. Based on the literature, spi1b is a key driver of macrophage differentiation, but its specific regulatory role is not clearly defined in the model.

Recommendation: Clarify the specific molecular function of spi1b and its causal relationships in the regulation of macrophage differentiation.

  1. Spelling error in the title:
  2. The title contains a spelling error: "differntiation" should be "differentiation".

Recommendation: Correct the spelling in the title.

Biological Content Assessment

  1. Consistency with literature:

  2. The model is generally consistent with the literature on irf2bp2b's role as a negative regulator of macrophage differentiation in zebrafish. According to the paper (PMID:31123027), depletion of irf2bp2b results in a bias toward macrophage fate at the expense of neutrophils during definitive myelopoiesis.

  3. The paper indicates that irf2bp2b is under the control of C/ebpα (cebpa), which is correctly represented in the model.

  4. Missing biological details:

  5. The model does not capture the neutrophil versus macrophage fate decision aspect mentioned in the paper's title. The paper discusses how irf2bp2b regulates the balance between neutrophil and macrophage differentiation, but the model only represents the macrophage differentiation side.

Recommendation: Consider expanding the model to represent both sides of the cell fate decision (neutrophil vs. macrophage differentiation).

  1. Pathway completeness:
  2. The model represents a simplified version of the regulatory network. According to the literature, pu.1 (spi1b) expression is inhibited by irf2bp2b, which is represented in the model, but the downstream effects of this regulation on other targets and pathways are not included.

Recommendation: Consider adding additional downstream targets and effects if well-supported by evidence.

Conclusion

This GO-CAM model provides a good foundation for representing the regulation of macrophage differentiation in zebrafish via transcription factors. The model correctly captures the core regulatory relationship between cebpa, irf2bp2b, and macrophage differentiation. However, it needs several technical improvements to fully adhere to GO-CAM best practices for transcription factor annotation, and could be expanded to better represent the biological complexity of neutrophil versus macrophage fate decisions.

The most critical improvements needed are: 1. Providing a specific molecular function for spi1b 2. Correcting the causal relationships between activities 3. Adding cellular compartment information 4. Expanding the biological scope to include the neutrophil fate decision

With these improvements, the model would provide a more complete and accurate representation of this important regulatory pathway in zebrafish myelopoiesis.