Skip to content

Based on the information I've gathered, I'll now review the GO-CAM model (gomodel:5fce9b7300001616) titled "SPModule-PGRP1-S100A4".

Review of GO-CAM Model: gomodel:5fce9b7300001616

Overview of the Model

This GO-CAM model describes the interaction between PGLYRP1 (Tag7/PGRP-S), S100A4 (Mts1), and two chemokine receptors (CCR5 and CXCR3) in the context of immune cell migration. The model captures how PGLYRP1 and S100A4 form a complex that acts as a chemoattractant, stimulating lymphocyte migration via CCR5 and CXCR3 receptors.

Model Components

The model consists of four key activities: 1. PGLYRP1 (UniProtKB:O75594) with molecular adaptor activity (GO:0060090) 2. S100A4 (UniProtKB:P26447) with chemoattractant activity (GO:0042056) 3. CCR5 (UniProtKB:P51681) with C-C chemokine receptor activity (GO:0016493) 4. CXCR3 (UniProtKB:P49682) with C-C chemokine receptor activity (GO:0016493)

The causal relationships show: - PGLYRP1 directly positively regulates (RO:0002629) S100A4's chemoattractant activity - S100A4 directly positively regulates (RO:0002629) both CCR5 and CXCR3 activities

Scientific Accuracy and Evidence

The model is well-supported by the cited literature, particularly PMID:26654597 and PMID:30713770, which describe how the Tag7-Mts1 (PGLYRP1-S100A4) complex induces lymphocyte migration through CCR5 and CXCR3 receptors. Key scientific points from the publications that align with the model:

  1. The Tag7-Mts1 complex acts as a chemoattractant, while neither protein individually has this activity
  2. The complex signals through CCR5 and CXCR3 receptors to induce lymphocyte movement
  3. Mts1 (S100A4) can bind to the receptors but requires Tag7 (PGLYRP1) to activate them effectively
  4. The complex has higher affinity for CCR5 than CXCR3

The model correctly captures these cellular location annotations: - PGLYRP1 and S100A4 are in the extracellular space (GO:0005615) - CCR5 and CXCR3 are on the cell surface (GO:0009986)

Model Structure and GO-CAM Practices

The model follows GO-CAM best practices for representing protein interactions and causal relationships:

  1. Appropriate molecular functions: The molecular adaptor activity for PGLYRP1 is appropriate since it mediates the interaction with S100A4, enabling the complex to function as a chemoattractant.

  2. Causal relationships: The model uses the correct relationship "directly positively regulates" (RO:0002629) to show how PGLYRP1 enables S100A4's chemoattractant activity, and how S100A4 then activates the receptors.

  3. Cellular locations: All entities have appropriate cellular component annotations.

  4. Evidence: Each association and causal relationship is appropriately evidenced with references to published literature.

  5. Complex representation: The model follows the GO-CAM guidelines for representing complexes by showing the individual proteins and their specific activities rather than representing the complex as a single entity, which is appropriate since the specific roles of PGLYRP1 and S100A4 in the complex are known.

Areas for Potential Improvement

While the model is scientifically accurate and well-structured, a few minor improvements could be considered:

  1. Pathway completeness: The model could potentially be extended to include downstream signaling events following receptor activation, such as G-protein activation, calcium signaling, or cytoskeletal reorganization required for cell migration.

  2. Receptor specificity: According to the literature, CCR5 has a stronger interaction with the Tag7-Mts1 complex than CXCR3 does. This difference in affinity isn't captured in the current model.

  3. Molecular details: The literature mentions specific regions of homology between S100A4, PGLYRP1, and MIP1alpha (a natural ligand of CCR5) that may be important for receptor binding. These structural details aren't captured in the current model.

Conclusion

The GO-CAM model gomodel:5fce9b7300001616 is a scientifically accurate and well-structured representation of how the PGLYRP1-S100A4 complex induces lymphocyte migration through chemokine receptors. The model follows GO-CAM best practices and is supported by the cited literature. It effectively captures the key molecular and cellular components of this pathway, making it a valuable resource for understanding this aspect of immune cell migration.

The model could potentially be enhanced by extending it to include downstream signaling events or by capturing the differences in affinity between the receptors, but these are minor suggestions for what is already a high-quality model.