MTFMT notes

Literature review was done manually from cached PubMed records; the falcon deep-research report (MTFMT-deep-research-falcon.md) completed afterwards and was skimmed for consistency with the review decisions; no conflicts were found.

• MTFMT formylates part of the mitochondrial Met-tRNA(Met) pool to fMet-tRNA(Met) for initiation PMID:21907147.
• Patient fibroblasts lose fMet-tRNA(Met) and have a mitochondrial translation defect rescued by MTFMT PMID:21907147.
• Purified enzyme assays of disease variants PMID:25288793.
• Disease: COXPD15 / Leigh syndrome; recurrent hypomorphic c.626C>T (see dismech entry Combined_Oxidative_Phosphorylation_Defect_Type_15).
• Review decisions: core MF GO:0004479, BP GO:0071951; GO:0006413 modified to GO:0070124 mitochondrial translational initiation.

Reviewed-row count, and the organelle-level rows

MTFMT-ai-review.yaml carries 12 action: entries against 13 data rows in MTFMT-goa.tsv. The
difference is a genuine GOA duplicate, not an omission: two located_in GO:0005739 ISS rows share
GO_REF:0000024, WITH/FROM UniProtKB:O77480 and ASSIGNED BY UniProt, and differ only in DATE
(20240916 and 20211006). They are reviewed as one row.

The four GO:0005739 mitochondrion rows are ACCEPT, and that was examined rather than defaulted.
MTFMT is a matrix protein, GO:0005759 is this review's core location, and the review carries no
GO:0005759 annotation row — so refining GO:0005739 to GO:0005759 was tried, and it does clear
the standing core_functions.locations traceability warning, because proposed_replacement_terms
counts toward that check. It was reverted for a different reason: one of the four rows is an IBA, and
a MODIFY on a propagated row draws a propagation_review requirement that has to rest on inspected
PAINT evidence for this family, which has not been inspected. Refining three of the four and leaving
the IBA would put one term under two actions in one file, which is the inconsistency this review set
has been removing. The rows therefore stay ACCEPT, their reasons do not argue that the term is too
general, and whether organelle-level rows should be refined wherever a compartment term is
established is left as the systemic question.