Dark-Gene Batch Reviews: Curation Highlights

IN_PROGRESS PIPELINE

Species: worm, yeast

Dark-Gene Batch Reviews: Curation Highlights

Three batched review campaigns targeted deliberately understudied genes — the population
where function knowledge gaps concentrate — rather than the well-annotated core:

Campaign Organism Genes Selection basis
CAEEL C. elegans (worm) 50 Unreviewed members of the flagship CAEEL pathway projects (cilia/IFT, mitophagy, proteostasis, UPR, surveillance immunity, P-granule)
YEAST S. cerevisiae (yeast) 50 Named-but-dark genes from the SGD GAF: standard gene name, zero experimental-evidence annotations, few informative GO terms
POMBE S. pombe (SCHPO) 20 Named-but-dark genes from the PomBase GAF, same darkness filter

Each gene received a full annotation review plus a literature-grounded knowledge_gaps
section (the point of the exercise — see the parent project).
Beyond the gap records themselves, the reviews surfaced recurring, generalizable curation
findings. Those patterns are collected here because they are the concrete argument for why
dark genes need human-grade review rather than electronic propagation.

1. Identity correction before curation

Dark genes are disproportionately mislabeled — a "standard name" or a family hint can point at
the wrong biology. Grounding every review in the actual UniProt/PomBase record (not the symbol
or a prior assumption) caught several outright misassignments before they could drive wrong
annotations:

2. Pseudoenzyme detection

A conserved catalytic fold is routinely over-annotated with the ancestral catalytic activity
even when the catalytic residues have degenerated. Inline domain analysis (reading the UniProt
features and checking the specific catalytic motif) flagged several:

3. Family over-propagation removed or demoted

The dominant false-positive class for dark genes is IBA/ISS transfer from a characterized
paralog or distant ortholog whose function does not hold for the target:

In every case the annotation was flagged as electronic over-propagation with a structured
propagation_review, not by overruling an experimental annotation.

4. Evidence-grounded upgrades

Dark-gene review is not only subtractive; deep reading also finds well-supported functions
missing from GOA:

5. Fabrication guardrails held

The supporting_text-must-be-verbatim rule and independent fact-checking caught deep-research
errors before they entered a review:

Why this matters

Across 120 dark genes, the value was rarely a brand-new function statement; it was (a) getting the
protein's identity right, (b) refusing to inherit a paralog's activity through a degenerate fold
or a wrong-subfamily transfer, and (c) writing down, with provenance, exactly what remains unknown.
That is the raw material the Function Knowledge Gaps register is
built from.